October 10, 2017

Interest in sexual harassment was suppressed to protect Bill Clinton: Is that part of why Harvey Weinstein got away with his abuses?

The 1990s began with a heightening of interest in sexual harassment as liberals tried to defeat the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. The refrain in the fall of 1991 was "You just don't get it," as Democrats lambasted anyone who resisted taking sexual harassment in the workplace seriously. But in 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Democrats reversed the message. In the biggest sellout of feminism I've seen in my lifetime, sexual harassment turned into just sex, and those who wanted to take it seriously were derided as prigs.

Now, I'm reading the NYT article "Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them/'This way of treating women ends now,' Ms. Paltrow said as she and other actresses accused the producer of casting-couch abuses," and I'm wondering why only now? Why not earlier? What stood in your way?

My hypothesis is that liberals — including nearly everyone in the entertainment business — suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton. Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years.

So I'm looking at the new NYT article and trying to see what the dates are. They're kind of obscure! I'm seeing vague phrases like "in the late 1990s" and "accounts of sexual harassment going back to the 1990s." I am seeing a couple clear dates. First, 1999...
Even as Ms. Paltrow became known as the “first lady of Miramax” and won an Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, very few people knew about Mr. Weinstein’s advances. “I was expected to keep the secret,” she said.
... and 1996:
In 1996, the French actress Judith Godrèche said she was invited up to Mr. Weinstein’s suite, where he asked to give her a massage. After she said no, she recalled, he argued that casual massages were an American custom.
I just want to put this hypothesis out there and encourage people to correlate allegations about Weinstein with the great knowing-and-forgetting process that happened in the 1990s — 1991 and 1998 were the key dates — as the issue of sexual harassment was crushed into whatever shape worked in the interest of Democratic Party power.

Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?

***

"I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do."/"What really went through my mind at that time is 'She knows. She knew. She's covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.'"

274 comments:

1 – 200 of 274   Newer›   Newest»
readering said...

There are lots of stories about sexual harassment in the workplace, going back to the nineties and earlier. It's not all about WJC.

Jupiter said...

"Was suppressed"? Passive voice.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think more likely the people suppressing benefited directly with access or favors. That it helped Clinton is just a happy coincidence.

Meade said...

"the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last"

MoveOnAtLongLast.Org

Tarrou said...

Not covering for the Clintons may be a bit of it, but that's the small bit. The biggest part is the civil war between the Bernie and Hillary wings of the party. Ashley Judd is definitely in the Bernie wing, Weinstein in the Hillary wing. This is a skirmish over the direction of the Left. The press would suppress it as they had always done if this was about left vs. right. When it's left vs. left, then they have something to say.

Jupiter said...

It sounds like the only person who ever told Weinstein to knock it off was Brad Pitt.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, he's now been accused of rape. Everyone who asked why we were wasting time talking about it just found out why

William Chadwick said...

Hillary finally issued a statement.

"If there's one type of man that disgusts and enrages me," the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua said, "it's a sexual predator."

AllenS said...

I knew you'd think about this matter, Althouse. Good for you. It's been on my mind since this HW bullshit started.

Hari said...

Is the corollary: now that Trump is president, the Left has a vested interest in rediscovering sexual harassment? Is this battlefield prep for future stories about Trump? Does giving Harvey Weinstein the death penalty make it easier to do the same for Trump?

Matthew Sablan said...

This is no longer a job for journalists. This is a job for legal authorities.

Bay Area Guy said...

The central charge against Clarence Thomas was that one time he asked, rhetorically, "Who put a pubic hair on my Coke?"

I kid you not.

I remember the Clarence Thomas hearings vividly.

There was no claim that Thomas:
(a) touched Hill
(b) demoted Hill
(c) asked Hill out
(d) made lewd comments to Hill or around Hill.

It was utter bullshit, a big nothing designed by Dems to Bork Thomas - because he was a twofer: a black Conservative and a possible 5th vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It was as Thomas noted, "a high-tech lynching"

Before he went all weird, David Brock (if you can believe it), was the primary debunker of Hill.

There were bumper stickers, "I believe you, Anita!"

Compare and contrast to Harvey, with probably at least 20 or more victims, and Bill Clinton (with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaderick).

That's how the Hollywood/Dem Left rolls.


Ken B said...

This appeals so strongly to my confirmation bias that I cannot trust my reaction. It was though, aha that explains it. It explains the timing too. Protecting the Clinton name to elect Hillary is not so important now; indeed some factions, freed from the prospect of blame for losing an election, will want to tarnish it.

buwaya said...

Re - Judith Godrèche - watch "Ridicule", Leconte, 1996
(Not a Weinstein film)

eric said...

I think you are definitely on to something here.

What changed? Well, Hillary lost. So, why keep enabling this type of behavior? A part of why Trump won is thanks to Bill Clinton. These sexual misconduct allegations just don't hold the same weight they used to. Move on. It wasn't really sex. Depends on what the meaning of is is. Etc.

So now, they want that power back again. They want to be able to take down Trump or others for sexual allegations.

In order to do so, first they need to come clean on their past sweeping under the rug.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hari, I see it reversed. The actual idealists in the left are getting vocal about the left's hypocrisy. If a non Trump Republican had won, the cognitive dissonance may never have kicked in.

PJ said...

What, no Gloria Steinem tag?

Ralph L said...

the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years.

To 1997? That was an illusion. More like 1977.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Hillary is running scared.

Lem said...

The answer is yes.

Harvey Weinstein is doing a good job.

What happened is between him and his wife.

Now he needs to get back to work for... Hollywood.

BDNYC said...

I am sensing a cultural moment here. Years ago, Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood warned obliquely about sex predators in Hollywood. Seth MacFarlane told a joke at the Oscars that, in retrospect, seems to reflect his and everyone else's actual knowledge of Weinstein's lecherous ways. And, of course, there are the earlier examples of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.

It is clear now that there's a conspiracy of silence in Hollywood. This can and should mean that the integrity of megastars like Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow is rightly questioned. Why did they remain silent? I can understand a struggling actor who remains silent, because that person has no power and depends totally on the power structure in their industry. But Jolie and Paltrow could write their own tickets and had no reason to fear Weinstein. (Some actors, like Rose McGowan, signed NDA's.)

Brad Pitt may have confronted Weinstein in person -- so what? What did he do after that, when Weinstein continued to victimize young women?

What other horrible crimes are Hollywood stars covering up?

Ralph L said...

It's just about sex.

Hari said...

Matthew,

"The actual idealists in the left are getting vocal about the left's hypocrisy. "

Do you see the NYT and the New Yorker as idealists exposing hypocrisy?

Could it be that Trump's constant pounding of the media as being biased has pressured it to finally become more evenhanded?

Mountain Maven said...

Leftist politics is simply about power and money, like all politics. Feminists lost their cachet when they defended bill Clinton. Weinstein simply reminds us that the left has no ideals or beliefs beyond power and money. And that Streep is a loathsome creature.

Mountain Maven said...

And HRC condemning Weinstein... Words fail me here.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm already tired of these actresses coming out now a days saying "Me too! But I was strong and didn't give in to his demands." Bullshit!

They kept their mouth shut way after they needed Weinstein. The reason they kept their mouth shut was that they did what they thought they had to do to realize their dreams of fame and fortune. They didn't give a shit about other women having to do what they did.

Now if they want to get serious, start naming the other predators out there. Everyone agrees this is a rampant problem so there should be wholesale cleaning.

But what about the gay producers? That would be politically dangerous to point fingers at them. They'll be labeled homophobes.

Sebastian said...

"My hypothesis is that liberals — including nearly everyone in the entertainment business — suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton." This assumes they had any "concern" to begin with. Not so: sexual harassment was always a tool to beat the opposition. Prog women eagerly embraced Bill, wanted to get down on their knees for him; they did not "suppress" anything. But their lack of concern, whatever you call it, certainly helped Bill, but also Ted Kennedy and the whole Progressive-Sexual Complex. They knew no prog woman would say "they lost me" over mere sexual "misconduct"--it wasn't even sexual, you know.

The Clinton empire is crumbling, as discerning blog commentators noted right away when the Weinstein scandal broke, and the only question now is: when Bill? That may still endanger too many Dem interests, but the far left smells blood and his scalp would be the biggest.

Tarrou said...

I'm always impressed by the humiliation and degradation people will inflict on themselves for their ideologies. Weinstein is one example, but look at Europe, where feminists are making false reports accusing innocent people of rape so they won't seem racist by identifying the real perpetrators. Imagine that.

Imagine condoning child rape for decades because arresting the perpetrators might make your favored religion look bad. Whether it's Catholicism or Islam, I can't wrap my head around that.

If you are willing to condone and perpetuate violence, sexual or otherwise, in the pursuit of good PR for your ideology, you are scum.

Mary E. Glynn said...


What other horrible crimes are Hollywood stars covering up?


Google Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood and read what the boat captain tells about that night with CHristopher Walken aboard...

Owen said...

Prof A: to answer your question, yes. Weinstein and Clinton are connected both in financial and political fact, and in the larger shadow-play of comparability. If Weinstein's predations were exposed and condemned, why were Bill's not? So to avoid awkward questions, especially about HRC's role in crushing women who accused Bill, Harvey had to be left alone.

Now? Clintons have no more juice, or not enough anyway, to prevent the long-overdue housecleaning and payback. Probably there will be a paroxysm of blaming and shaming, and angry, tearful Oscar-worthy scenes. J'accuse! A dozen leading ladies cry out.

And then? Silence. I think Hollywood is going to work very hard indeed to keep the spot tightly on Harvey. No way was his behavior representative of a porcine culture obsessed not with sex but with humiliation. Move on. Let's...look at the new talent!
Feminists you can believe in!

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

And HRC condemning Weinstein... Words fail me here.

Just wait until Hillary hears a out Bill. She'll be so mad!

Also I guess Obama hasn't read about it in the papers yet. Obama should have Malia dusted for fingerprints.

William said...

Harvey is, and the term can be used literally, a sick fuck. His whole life is one long long power trip where the point is not to win but to humiliate your opponent and spit or whatever on their face. He's a product of the Hollywood culture and could only prosper and flourish in Hollywood. I know that some pharma CEO could maybe hit on a cute girl in accounting, but what executive could pull the shit Harvey did. All those scenes with all those girls over all of hose years. Only in Hollywood...... Harvey didn't just hit on the marginal and unimportant. He seems to have taken pleasure in inflicting himself on the daughters of the well born and mighty. Paltrow, Jolie, Sorvino were not without connections. He was a remarkably ugly man in a town populated by the remarkably beautiful, and he went out of his way to make those pretty people pay.......Sirhan Sirhan was not a product of America's gun culture. He was a Palestinian terrorist. Harvey Weinstein is not a product of America's patriarchy. He is a sick fuck from Hollywood. He could only be created by Hollywood. He could only prosper and thrive in Hollywood. He is Hollywood values on display. As are George Clooney, Meryl Streep, and Matt Damon.

Oso Negro said...

I am not sure I want Hollywood to come clean. Does ANYONE think it is just about young actresses? Who is going to be brave enough to call out the homosexuals of Hollywood? They are legion.

Robin Eatmon said...

Narcissists gather power while diminishing the souls of the vulnerable which creates more narcissists. Toxic conditions in Hollywood...In Washington, DC.

Sally327 said...

I don't really buy the theory that "Hollywood" covered up the Weinstein story because it would help Bill Clinton. What kind of help did he really need from them, with James Carville and the other attack dogs doing a perfectly fine job shredding the reputation of any woman who spoke out about Clinton (a strategy Weinstein's lawyer Lisa Bloom was apparently going to pursue as well until she quit).

Despite Gennifer Flowers, et al., he won his first presidential election in 1992 fairly easily (thanks to Ross Perot more than anyone covering up sex scandals). Paula Jones sued him in 1994 and he still won reelection in 1996. By the time the Lewinsky scandal broke he was never going to run for office again. And whatever we might think of his behavior with Monica, she was a willing participant in the affair.

AlbertAnonymous said...

"Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?"

In a word... "Nope".

The Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) will once again cover for their favorite democrat politicians the moment they see it once again in their political interest to do so.

mandrewa said...

The scale of things is unbelievable. It isn't just 20 women. That may be the number that have said something in public so far, but I'm getting the funny feeling we are really talking about thousands.

There were probably hundreds of people that covered for Weinstein at his companies alone. And there must have been hundreds of thousands of conversations within Hollywood about this topic.

By the way, I think this proves that the overwhelming majority of women, in Hollywood anyway, don't talk about this sort of thing even when they are victimized.

It's astonishing. I've never lived in this world. I've never come close to it.

Mike Sylwester said...

At a library book sale on Saturday, I bought a bag-full of books, which included Kendra on Top by Kendra Wilkinson. She was one of Hugh Hefner's three main girlfriends during the years 2004-2009, and she appeared regularly on the TV reality series The Girls Next Door, which featured Hefner and those three girlfriends.

On Sunday I read much of the book -- as much as I will read. Because of these discussions on this blog about Harvey Weinstein, I thought I would share my new knowledge of Hefner's seduction methods, as a contrast to Weinstein's methods.

Kendra met Hef at one of his parties when she was 18 years old. She had been hired for $200 to work as a nude waitress. Her naked body was painted, and she served walked around and served alcoholic drinks to Hef's guests.

In her daily life, she worked as a stripper. Since about the age of 14, she had been in a lot of trouble. She had dropped out of school, had become addicted to drugs and alcohol, had been in a lesbian relationship and had been involved with a series of sketchy men. However, she stopped consuming drugs and alcohol, returned to high school, and began studying to become a dental technician.

Eventually she became a stripper, a job that she enjoyed and earned her a lot of money. It was not her stripper work that brought her to Playboy's attention, however. Rather, she posed in sexy clothes at car shows, and one of those photographs was seen by the Playboy employee who had been assigned to hire nude waitresses for Hefner's party.

Anyway, when Hefner saw her photo, he immediately became infatuated with her. He introduced himself to her at the party and simply asked her, "would you like to be my boyfriend?" She answered, "maybe.".

Although Kendra already was living with a boyfriend, she accepted Hefner's invitation to come back on the following weekend. (She had lied to him that she was attending college classes and was available only on weekends.)

She spent that following weekend in Hefner's mansion. At the end of the weekend, he invited her to move into his mansion. She explained that she was living with her boyfriend and paying most of the rent. He asked how much she would have to pay until the lease expired, and she said about $4,000. So, Hefner gave her $5,000 in cash.

Kendra went home, told her boyfriend that she was moving into Hefner's mansion. She gave her boyfriend the cash to pay off the rent while she was gone -- which she estimated about be about two months (she was gone for about five years). And then a few days later she moved into the mansion.

At that time, Hefner was about 78 years old.

Kevin said...

The great whitewashing begins:

Allred said a number of other accusers have approached her, but the statute of limitations on their potential legal claims has passed. She’s calling on Weinstein to agree not to assert that defense and instead resolve the claims in confidential arbitration. If he would agree, Allred said Weinstein might have a hope of salvaging his career and the women would get justice.
“It gives them a day in court,” she said. “Why would he do it? Because I think he wants to work in this town again.”


See, these women need to get paid. And Harvey needs to get back to his old job. And by Harvey consenting to one, Allred and her pals will consent to the other. And who is to question her? She represents the real victims. And they alone, not all of Hollywood, but they alone, should determine what happens to him.

And as long as they get a large enough payment so they don't have to work again, perhaps they can let him and his ilk get back to work nurturing the next generation of talent.

Donald Trump never paid, you see. But Harvey will. And by paying, he should be tapped on the shoulder with the magic wand of feminism and given his magic movie-making powers back.

It's never about the principle with liberals. It's just about the income and how it is redistributed. They will show us how to live. They will show us the way.

Harvey himself, his smiling, redemptive self, will show us the way.

Ray said...

Bill Clinton showed what happened to accusers with their reputation was trashed. Bill and Hillary are vicious, no holds barred, hold a grudge against those they feel wronged them. Look what they did to the reputation of Kenneth Star, much less Paula Jones, etc. Bill Cosby made some conservative remarks, and look what happened to him (right or wrong, but I have the feeling if he had not said anything conservative his reputation would be intact). The viciousness of what was done against Judge Thomas, not to mention Miguel Estrada (wife committed suicide, ouch). Vince Foster also committed suicide due to pressure. The verb Borking exists for a reason. Basically the Left can be Vicious, the Right plays fair.

The choice of a lot of the victims of Harvey Weinstein was you can go forward and have your reputation and career destroyed as has happened to so many others that go against the Left, or you can keep quiet. Very few people are willing to be a martyr. And Weinstein's latest lawyer is promising a scorched earth defense against his accusers per the Daily Mail.

What amazes me is the amount of people who enabled this.

I am still surprised this came out in the NY Times and New Yorker. There are several different theories on why it finally came out.

Theories:

1. This is a warning to Hillary, to retire, by the Bernie Supporters.

2. Harvey Weinstein's Brother set him up.

3. The protectors, that used to protect Harvey, have lost their mojo as advertising
dollars have gone to Google & Facebook.

4. Some reporters finally got enough proof to take down Weinstein, to overcome the fear of lawsuits.

5. Harvey Weinstein is not as powerful as he once was. He has not had a box office hit in a while, creditors are after him, and that enabled the reporters to get their stories published.

6. Due to scandals coming out about Ailes, OReilly, Bolling, etc. with payoffs in the Millions at Fox News, this made it easier to publish the story on Weinstein.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The Clintons are the gift that keep on giving. And they refuse to go the F away.

Kevin said...

"If there's one type of man that disgusts and enrages me," the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua said, "it's a sexual predator."

And that's why I'm keeping all the money he gave me. To make clear to him my disgust and rage.

William said...

I think it's more than possible Harvey pulled something with Malia. He's a sick fuck, and that's what sick fucks do. I could see him really getting an extra special frisson by abusing the daughter of the POTUS........I repeat again. Only in Hollywood is such a man possible.

AlbertAnonymous said...

... when are we going to hear from some brave women (or men) standing up to all the sexual predators in the NFL.

Maybe we'll get some 'players vs. owners' back and forth where each side tries to damage the other by disclosing the (long known but never discussed?) treachery and debauchery perpetrated by the star players/team owners they need to take down.

My name goes here. said...

"Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?"

Close.

They are coming (in part) because some of the Left want to end Hillary's chances in 2020 for someone they favor more.

YoungHegelian said...

Okay, I'm gonna go off into the weeds here, so please bear with me (or skip my comment).

The election of Trump is a watershed moment for the American Left, both moderate & not. They got blindsided big time. The present political scene, from DC down to dogcatchers, favors the Repubs like never before in our history. The Left asks "What happened? Why isn't our message getting through? What did we do wrong?".

As part of this self-examination, the Left is discovering that public virtue (i.e. politics for the correct causes) does not in any way connect to private morality. The identity Left, especially the feminists, thought that by making the private political, that politics would take the place of virtue.

It didn't work. Aristotelian, Stoic, Jewish & Christian ideas of virtue place the primary locus of virtue in the individual. A "moral man" will no doubt have a beneficent public face, but his primary moral responsibility is to his conscience, his family, & his God. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

So, what moral vocabulary does a secular Hollywood have against a Harvey Weinstein, whose private life was abhorrent? That he's a "sinner"? That sort of quaint moral notion is long dead among the secularists. It's simply too troublesome a concept when there's an awful lot of sinning to be done, when much of what you consider virtue is whitewashing what used to be known as sins. That he "exploited" those women? It's tough even for Hollywood to see how millionaire actresses are "exploited". What was HW supposed to be? A Gentleman? How many of those are there in Hollywood? Feminists loath them, too, as just one more face of the patriarchy.

What the Left is discovering the hard way here is that the personal isn't political. The personal is the true battleground of virtue, and defeat on that battleground is called "sin". It's a very useful concept, which is why our ancestors were so fond of talking about it.

AllenS said...

It's outrageous, and time for all women to come together as one, and to take a knee, and, ah, oh forget about it. Won't work.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The A-listers are coming out.

How many of these same A-listers endorsed the Clinton crime machine last year?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Bay Area Guy, yep. If feminists were really interested in stopping sexual harassment, they would have started with Senatorial lushes Teddy Kennedy and Chris Dodd who tried to make a waitress sandwich back in the '80's. Stories about how Kennedy treated women were all over DC in those days, just like "everyone knew" about Weinstein in Hollywood, but Kennedy, of course, was liberal royalty. As long as he supported abortion (and why would a lech oppose it?) Kennedy could have raped a woman in Boston Commons and liberals would shake their heads, chuckle and say, "Oh, those Kennedy boys!"

Also, the Clinton and Kennedy victims were nobodies anybody in DC cared about. A waitress, a nursing home director? Big whoop. Anita Hill, an attorney and POC? She deserved to be believed. (We all know lawyers never lie.)

So you had Kennedy and Clinton being pigs and yet Thomas was the one who underwent the electronic lynching - for supposedly making a vulgar joke.

I haven't taken feminist outrage about harassment seriously for a very long time.

MikeR said...

Professor, I don't know if you've commented on this, but I'd like to know your take: There have been sexual harassment claims against Donald Trump, quite a few of them. What do you think of them? How do they compare with the claims about Bill Clinton, or Harvey Weinstein, or whomever. Or if you're not interested in comparing a claim against someone who has credibly been accused of three rapes, how about objectively? How terrible is Donald Trump in this regard?

rhhardin said...

the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years.

Today the women as fragile envelopes of fine souls in the workplace was born. No adult women.

Anything that makes women uncomfortable is illegal, a law that cannot work, but we're into direct action in the women's movement.

It can't work because women are inconsistent, unreasoning and unaccountable. It's their thing.

Bay Area Guy said...

@MikeR,

Look! Squirrel!

Mike Sylwester said...

I am adding some to my comment at 5:50 PM.

At the end of that party where Kendra worked as a nude waitress, Hefner asked her whether she wanted to be his girlfriend. She said maybe, so she invited her to return and spend the following weekend in his mansion.

She agreed and came back on the following Friday night and stayed until Sunday night. During that weekend, she was one of eight girlfriends of Hefner.

On Saturday evening, he took them all out to eat at a restaurant, and then they all returned to the mansion.

A couple of the girls invited Kendra to come with them upstairs to a big bedroom for a party. Kendra went along and just did what the other seven girls did. They all undressed bare naked and took a bath together. Then they all went on climbed onto Hefner's big bed, where he was lying naked on his back.

His main girlfriend, Holly Madison, fellated him until he had a strong erection, and then all eight girls took turns impaling themselves on his erect penis. Each girl spent about one minute having vaginal intercourse with him. Kendra watched the other seven girls do so, and then she was the eighth to take her one-minute turn. (Kendra does not explain what happened after that sequence.)

Kendra generally had a good time, and at the end of the weekend, she decided she wanted to move into the mansion.

It seems from the book that these Saturday night orgies were basically her only sexual intercourse with Hefner. It happened every Saturday night, and it was always the same routine.

The Saturday-night orgies ended only at the very end of Kendra's five-year stay. On one Saturday night, Hefner went upstairs with only Holly. Kendra was relieved that the weekly routine apparently had ended. Soon afterwards, she moved out.

I suppose that Kendra did not reveal everything that happened, but she seems to be rather honest about what did happen.

She never felt any resentment toward Hefner. She was grateful for the interesting experience of living with him. She always felt she was living with him on her own volition and that she was free to break up with him and to move out whenever she decided to do so. She speaks only well of him in her book.

Owen said...

Kevin: "...these women need to get paid." Well, sure. But they have waited a long time, and without any clear hope of recompense or vindication, so how strong is the payoff motivation now? I think it is deeper than money. Imagine living with that kind of nightmare sleaze bucket humiliation for decades, wondering about your worth, your strength of character, whether you'd really earned your place, or were just one more pawn on Harvey's chessboard.

What interests me, though, as a legal matter, is how Allred will package the claims. Because I think lawyers with clients like these, almost a class action of Women Abused by Harvey, have to think about how many similarly-situated potential plaintiffs there might be; how to identify them; how to bring them into the class or otherwise capture both the power and the responsibility of representing them effectively; the logistics of interviewing them and testing their evidence; addressing the statute of limitations/waiver/NDA other issues that might affect their claims. Gloria is looking for a bottom line. Harvey's lawyers will be doing the same. I am guessing there will be a very quiet resolution with some pablum announcements, covering a good many claimants. Probably good for $10-20MM. So Gloria will take home $3-6MM.

Nice work if you can get it.

William said...

Harvey was not a sensual man in pursuit of pleasure. He was a sick fuck who enjoyed inflicting humiliation on subordinate women.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Sally,
"What kind of help did he really need from them"

Seriously? Change a small fraction of the votes and he doesn't get elected. This would have significantly eaten into the media advantage that the Democrats have enjoyed. Carville was very good at what he did, but he couldn't have done it without the compliant media, including Hollywood.

rhhardin said...

Harvey was not a sensual man in pursuit of pleasure. He was a sick fuck who enjoyed inflicting humiliation on subordinate women.

Same principle. Just say no. It's even easier the weirder his demands. The cost to you is too high, no deal.

For actual crimes (rape, kidnapping, assault) file a complaint with the law. For weirdness, gossip with friends.

Act like guys for once.

Jack Wayne said...

You forgot to tie in JFK and Teddy. They were both very sick men. Inasmuch as Clinton adulated JFK, there’s certainly a connection between the two.

Rick said...


"The actual idealists in the left are getting vocal about the left's hypocrisy. "

The idealists were always making noise. Why did the rest stop muffling their sound?

rhhardin said...

It doesn't matter how sick they were. Next you'll be disgusted by gays.

Just say no, ladies.

tim in vermont said...

"Though we adore them individually, we agree that as a group they're rather stupid."

rhhardin said...

How to deal with a boss. Say no, go to his boss, ask if your sexual favors are suppost to be part of the lower boss's salary or what because he's demanding them for fair treatment of you.

Await developments.

It has an advantage to just quitting. Keep going up the ladder. If you're fired, you get severence.

No real need to quit before the top.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Wait, so Gloria Allred's daughter (who previously only represented abused/harrassed women in allegations against powerful men) represented Harvey until it looked too bad for her.

And now Gloria is going to represent a bunch of women against Harvey? Good lord. Talk about having the market cornered!!

And why can't these women bring claims against Harvey? Statute of limitations? Seriously? All of a sudden Allred is worried about the statute of limitations? Did that stop the Cosby complainants? The Catholic church complainants? Allred and her ilk trying to bring claims against Trump? Honestly, when did it ever stop a leftist lawyer?

rhhardin said...

Or maybe you're happy supplying sexual favors. Probably lots of women are. Don't knock it.

rhhardin said...

Trump and Cosby used to roofie women in the old days.

Annie C said...

Finally Althouse!

tim in vermont said...

Funny how they, to this day, defend Bill from all of those Democrat volunteers and supporters who turned right-wing nuts and sluts as if bitten by vampires.

rhhardin said...

If Weinstein's in prison he can demand female guards in the shower.

Beaver7216 said...

Clarence Thomas hearings should have put any political types on notice but then the Clinton reprieve made this apparently safe again. This stuff should have ended 26 years ago.
The French have it right:consensual sex between adult employer and employee is felony rape due to the inherent power position. This is not a "private" matter.

rhhardin said...

Alternatively call the boss's wife, or his mother.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Jack Wayne said...
You forgot to tie in JFK and Teddy."

John, Bobby and Teddy were all pigs but I focused on Teddy because his older brothers were murdered before second wave feminism really took off in a big way. I guess there is some room for debate as to when it became a big force, but I would say 1970 or so. Teddy continued on his merry way, as if it was still the Mad Men, Rat Pack era. Did Bella Abzug or or Ferraro or any other prominent feminist say zip about him? If so, I don't remember it.

rhhardin said...

There's rape and rape rape in France, then.

Francisco D said...

I share Ann's interest in why sexual allegations are coming out now.

The dam was broken with Bill Cosby. There are many more stories to be told.

It's unlikely that the "fuck for hire" actresses will open up.

A lot of big money operations attract perverts like Weinstein, Some of the women comply. Some keep their mouths shut (afterwards) and some do what it takes to make a career.

Maybe women of different political persuasions are emboldened to tell the truth now that Hillary will never be POTUS.

david rieck said...

Not so much. I believe it was his power to make or break someone in the movie business. That power had been waning. Of course it didn't hurt that The democrats lost the election. He just didn't have the king making power in Hollywood that he once had.

Matthew Sablan said...

I really wish that people who want to squirrel a conversation so they can find another venue to rant about how bad Trump is would just start their own blogs.

rhhardin said...

"Power imbalance" is always wrong. There's no thing "power."

Auctoritas, imperium, officium or potestas. Which?

The crime disappears if you're made to think about it.

"Well actually it's not exactly power..."

Kevin said...

Wait, so Gloria Allred's daughter (who previously only represented abused/harrassed women in allegations against powerful men) represented Harvey until it looked too bad for her.

And now Gloria is going to represent a bunch of women against Harvey?


As Owen noted above, Gloria probably outlined which lawyer was going to make the money and which would be working at an hourly rate. At that point her daughter resigned.

Sally327 said...

"Sally,
"What kind of help did he really need from them"

Seriously? Change a small fraction of the votes and he doesn't get elected. This would have significantly eaten into the media advantage that the Democrats have enjoyed. Carville was very good at what he did, but he couldn't have done it without the compliant media, including Hollywood."

Well, yes, I was being serious. Bill Clinton's horn dog behavior was very well known in Arkansas from the time he entered politics back in the 70s and his campaign knew when he ran for President in 1992 that he was going to have to deal with it, which the campaign famously did with the 60 Minutes interview and Hillary doing her Stand by My Man routine while Bill confessed causing pain in his marriage.

The country knew all about Bill Clinton and the accusations against him and they elected him President anyway. Twice. If Hollywood downplayed sexual harassment because doing so helped Clinton a whole lot of voters didn't think it was all that critical either.

And I don't think the media was all that compliant back then.

rhhardin said...

Force times velocity is power.

rhhardin said...

That's why propellor planes take off faster but can't go as fast as jets.

James K said...

Clarence Thomas hearings should have put any political types on notice

Nah, those hearings were just a political hatchet job on a conservative, one who was particularly threatening because of his race. No reason for actual sexually abusive Democrats to take anything from that.

Bay Area Guy said...

Harvey's wife, Georgina, says bye-bye

I guess she has a shitload more integrity then her old counterpart, Ms. Hillary.

rhhardin said...

Don't put stuff in the law that can't work, is a good principle.

Supreme court decisions are supposed to do that. The future apple cart is considered.

Michael K said...

Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?

Yes. There are some other good comments, like Bernie bros turning on Hillary.

This stuff is not new in Hollywood. Louis B Mayer molested Judy Garland when she was 12.

Read "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again."

The RJ Wagner / Natalie stuff is bullshit.

rhhardin said...

Freedom of association vs civil rights was a big SCOTUS mistake, and the future apple cart will not recover.

rcocean said...

"The country knew all about Bill Clinton and the accusations against him and they elected him President anyway."

Wrong. In 1992, all people knew was Jennifer Flowers, and every Democrat from Hillary to Dan Rather said Jennifer Flowers was a liar, and even if she was telling the truth, Hillary had forgiven him.

Later, Paula Jones, the Arkansas troopers, etc were all smeared, lied about, and Bill's actions were denied. It was all part of a "Right wing conspiracy". The lies continued all the way through Paula Jones sexual harassment case, the Blue dress and Linda Tripp.

rhhardin said...

FBI files, Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Travelgate were worse for Clinton and didn't hurt him. All Vince Fostered.

Sally327 said...

"Bay Area Guy said...
Harvey's wife, Georgina, says bye-bye

I guess she has a shitload more integrity then her old counterpart, Ms. Hillary.

10/10/17, 6:40 PM"

Maybe not integrity as much as it is money since people have been calling for boycotts of her Marchesa clothing line. Which is kind of ironic since it was Harvey's pushing it forward, having her dress various actresses from his movies for the red carpet, etc., that gave her career a huge boost in the first place.

Bay Area Guy said...

Hah - I'm dreaming of the next lawyerly statement by Harvey's legal team. Lisa Bloom has already bailed. David Boies needs to get paid, before he bails.

Maybe, Baghdad Bob from Iraq can be put on retainer. Or Nathan Thurm.

"My client did not have sex with that potted plant. He categorically denies any and all such accusations. And he has to get back to work on behalf of the American movie-goers."

Kevin said...

Harvey’s wife is leaving because she wants the settlement payments to come out of his half.

rhhardin said...

Cattle futures.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"And I don't think the media was all that compliant back then."

LOL! Not sure what world you were living in.

Just to name a few items:
The constant cover-up for the Kennedy's - including JFK and Bobby, and going along with the Camelot fantasy that Jackie pushed, with nary a peep when Teddy kept running for President?

No one questioning Cronkite's analysis of the Tet offensive?

Not seriously looking into Whitewater, Travelgate, the many stories/accusations of Bill's extracurricular activities as Governor?

MadisonMan said...

I really wish that people who want to squirrel a conversation so they can find another venue to rant about how bad Trump is would just start their own blogs

Oh, I don't know. IF (IF) this HW stuff is started as a means to lay groundwork for some whisper campaign against Trump that builds up to a demand that he resign (I don't expect that to happen, because facts are lacking, however much Chuck might want them to materialize), then there is a link, albeit super-tenuous.

But just ranting about Trump being just as bad -- with no evidence -- then, yeah. There were plenty of people casting around for salacious stories before the election, and after. Nothing.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It sounds like the only person who ever told Weinstein to knock it off was Brad Pitt."

-- If McGowan is telling the truth, then Affleck also at some point told him to stop "doing that." Which sounds like something you tell your annoying friend who keeps chewing their fingernails in public rather than something you tell someone who assaults women.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Sally327,

Yeah, you're right, I'm not defending Georgina for the past. Sure, she's probably got some gold-digger elements - why else would you marry fat guy 25 years your senior, except for his money?

Was she another enabler? We shall see. Drip, drip, drip.

But, at least by leaving him now, she cuts the cord, which is head and shoulders above Hillary, who enabled her predator husband on the front end (to maintain his political viability), and defended and protected said predator on the back end (to advance her own political ambitions).



Sally327 said...

"Wrong. In 1992, all people knew was Jennifer Flowers, and every Democrat from Hillary to Dan Rather said Jennifer Flowers was a liar, and even if she was telling the truth, Hillary had forgiven him.

Later, Paula Jones, the Arkansas troopers, etc were all smeared, lied about, and Bill's actions were denied. It was all part of a "Right wing conspiracy". The lies continued all the way through Paula Jones sexual harassment case, the Blue dress and Linda Tripp.

10/10/17, 6:43 PM"

The Paula Jones story came out before the 1996 election and he was still re-elected. Monica, the blue dress, etc., isn't an example of sexual harassment. His approval numbers soared after all that came out. Which didn't really matter because he was going to be done with elective politics pretty soon anyway.

If voters were willing to believe that the women were liars, that he was being targeted for purely political reasons, maybe it's because they wanted to believe that. Or maybe they just didn't care. Bill Clinton is a master politician and an easy guy to like, especially back then.

Now I Know! said...

Twenty

anti-de Sitter space said...

"Harvey’s wife is leaving because she wants the settlement payments to come out of his half."

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a solid prenup.

BTW, it's cool that libs and cons can now come together to support Allred as she works to get dough from a dude.


[Of course cons must still oppose Allred's support of DJT's victims.]

Bay Area Guy said...

Industry Titan Jeff Katzenberg speaks!

Hey Harvey, Here is the bottom line. You stated in your email below that “A lot of the allegations are false as you know.” Well actually I don’t “know” and given the timing of the circumstances, I have no way of knowing.

However, you yourself, in your quotes, have acknowledged that you have behaved inappropriately…so it seems to me we are now down to degrees of horrible.

You have done terrible things to a number of women over a period of years.

I cannot in any way say this is OK with me…It’s not at all, and I am sickened by it, angry with you and incredibly disappointed in you.

There appear to be two Harvey Weinsteins…one that I have known well, appreciated and admired and another that I have not known at all.

As someone who has been a friend of yours for 30 years, I’m available to give you advice on how to at least try to make amends, if possible address those that you’ve wronged, and just possibly find a path to heal and redeem yourself. Having watched your reactions, seen the actions you have taken and read your statement, I will tell you, in my opinion, you have gone about this all wrong and you are continuing to make a horrible set of circumstances even worse.

I doubt this is what you want to hear from me and most likely you aren’t interested in my advice but this is the way I see it. I remain available. JK.

Brent said...

I can only think over and over of one thing in all of this from Clinton to Weinstein and everyone in between:

How does that much mocked and excoriated Vice President Pence "never alone with any woman other than his wife" rule look now?

Kathryn51 said...

Althouse asks: and I'm wondering why only now? Why not earlier? What stood in your way?

Frankly, I don't think the public cares all that much about tell-all exposes if on an individual basis. What should Gweneth or Jolie said or done? Even if they were safe from HW, they didn't want to rock the Hollywood boat and they most certainly did not want to risk moving from the A+ List to perhaps the A- or even B+ list.

They are speaking up now in order to polish up their feminist credentials and they know damn well that no reporter is ever going to ask them the questions that Althouse asks. I mean, really - Paltrow was "expected to keep the secret"???What a coward. That statement right there is Exhibit #1 about the foul, corrupt nature of not just Hollywood but Broadway, Conde Nast, New York gazillionaire/penthouse life and. . . .of course. . . their precious ability to cozy up to the Obamas, the Clintons, the Barbara Boxers, etc. etc.

What I want to know is this: did these women ever warn other young women about HW? Uh, probably not since Malia Obama (and her parents) apparently knew nothing about HW (Much as I dislike the Obamas, I don't believe they would have allowed Malia to work for the man exposed in recent days - she would have had her choice of cushy internships).

So, to finally answer the question, NO - this doesn't have anything to do with the Clintons and it has every thing to do with the new Dem Royalty, namely, the Obamas. I'm sure that Gwynnie, Angie, George Clooney, Matt D, Meryle and all the others are so, so sorry that they didn't speak up earlier so please, please Mr. Ex-President, don't ostracize me from the A+ List.

Sebastian said...

'My Heart Breaks for All the Women Who Have Suffered' Georgina is off to a good start in divorce, umm, negotiations.

"There appear to be two Harvey Weinsteins…one that I have known well, appreciated and admired and another that I have not known at all." If not an outright liar, Katzenberg is at least curiously incurious. Would any of us cynical conservatives come anywhere near a creature like HW, or tolerate his presence?

Bay Area Guy said...

Now I Know! said...
Twenty

10/10/17, 6:59 PM
________________________

A pithy statement, no doubt. Is that the number of women who Democrat mega-donor Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted or the number of Althouse posts pointing out Democrat mega-donor Harvey Weinstein's serial misconduct?

Sebastian said...

Hill was wrong: it was not the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy they had to worry about. It is the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy.

Sally327 said...

"And I don't think the media was all that compliant back then."

"LOL! Not sure what world you were living in.
Just to name a few items:
The constant cover-up for the Kennedy's - including JFK and Bobby, and going along with the Camelot fantasy that Jackie pushed, with nary a peep when Teddy kept running for President?

No one questioning Cronkite's analysis of the Tet offensive?

Not seriously looking into Whitewater, Travelgate, the many stories/accusations of Bill's extracurricular activities as Governor?

10/10/17, 6:50 PM"

I was thinking about the media's coverage of Bill Clinton which did cover all those things you mentioned about him, it's how we know about them. JFK died in 1963, Bobby in 1968, I was just a child then, I don't remember the coverage but it wouldn't be a surprise that sexual matters were not reported on. It wasn't for anyone back then, was it? So not exactly a cover-up or a double standard. And we know about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick because it was reported on when it happened.

Tet? Geesh, I don't know.

I'm not trying to play defense for the media, I just think the American people make up their own minds about all this stuff and the idea that there is this mass manipulation going on, it's very "Russia hacked the election territory" to me.

Mark said...

There is now no doubt that Clintonism has been one of the most destructive elements ever in the U.S. It corrupts and corrodes everything it touches.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"How does that much mocked and excoriated Vice President Pence "never alone with any woman other than his wife" rule look now?"

It still looks like an action that limits the ability of women to fully participate in commerce as they strive to advance their careers v institutionalized advantages re men in the workspace.


Bad Lieutenant said...

rhhardin said...
Harvey was not a sensual man in pursuit of pleasure. He was a sick fuck who enjoyed inflicting humiliation on subordinate women.

Same principle. Just say no. It's even easier the weirder his demands. The cost to you is too high, no deal.

For actual crimes (rape, kidnapping, assault) file a complaint with the law. For weirdness, gossip with friends.

Act like guys for once.
10/10/17, 6:15 PM


What horseshit from you, as is increasingly usual. A woman, generally, doesn't have the option of beating the guy into a coma, which is what would happen to any cleric, producer or other potentate who whipped it out and offered it to me.

Speaking of which, you half educated bastard, you forgot "potentias."

Speaking of which, if I beat you until you a)shut up, b) got your mind right, c) stopped pretending you know Latin, which form of "power" is that? Would it be a different form if I held at risk your possessions, or your family? How about your Doberman, or do I repeat myself?

Speaking of which, no matter how HW imposed his sick, dysfunctional excuse for a sexuality on women - he didn't have physical force, ie state troopers with guns, to make it stick, like Bill Clinton. At least he wasn't telling his secretary to blow his ADC, like JFK.

He was a furtive, one on one perv, contemptble, afraid of witnesses. If you haven't the capacity to securely process corpses, or at least obtain rock-solid alibis, you shouldn't play this game.

Speaking of "Trump and Cosby used to roofie women in the old days," Cosby we've heard about, proved nothing. Trump? Prove it or fuck you.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor is 100% right about the massive cover up for Bill and Hillary that had from the head down rotted the entire DC , New York, and Hollywood culture's approach to using truth. It started as the bedrock behind covering up ethnic cleansing by legal abortion, and then re-directed by Clinton, Inc. into Global selling off the USA's Hegemony for cash.

If you want a date, use July, 1996 when a simple airline disaster was ordered covered up from the top down into the leadership of the now Gestapo like Clinton owned FBI and CIA, all so that the 1996 re-election safely happened.

And being successful like Bill became every politician's goal. The women were collateral damage.

Kevin said...

I was thinking about the media's coverage of Bill Clinton which did cover all those things you mentioned about him, it's how we know about them.

Yes the media reported them. When they had no choice. And without great enthusiasm. In a he said, she said manner. Leaving the impression that you could feel just fine if you chose to believe him.

Contrast that with how they covered Trump’s statement to Billy Bush...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

but Trump rapes women, too.
!!!!

*collective left*

Bay Area Guy said...

Linda Tripp -- to whom Monica Lewinsky confided about her various trysts with Slick Willie -- was savaged by Saturday Night Live nearly every weekend for at least 6 months.

They had John Goodman play her (a big fat guy).

SNL was blocking and tackling for the Clintons. Silent on Harvey, though.

madAsHell said...

Aren't we diminishing the act by calling it harassment?

When does sexual harassment become sexual assault? I'm sure all of Clinton's victims were sexual assault.

Michael K said...

The lies continued all the way through Paula Jones sexual harassment case, the Blue dress and Linda Tripp.

The blue dress and Tripp's advice was all that kept Monica from being described as a stalker and worse.

Clinton was an inflection point in US politics but Trump is the Singularity.

"And I don't think the media was all that compliant back then."

"LOL! Not sure what world you were living in.
Just to name a few items:
The constant cover-up for the Kennedy's - including JFK and Bobby, and going along with the Camelot fantasy that Jackie pushed, with nary a peep when Teddy kept running for President?


Kennedy got a pass because of Jackie and Camelot.

Harding was trashed by the media of the time for having a mistress.

Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha - James Blaine
Refers to the out of wedlock child Cleveland allegedly had fathered.


The Jefferson Sally Hemmings thing was a campaign slander.

Nothing new but hiding these things is recent. It probably began with Kennedy.

Sebastian said...

"Act like guys for once." You mean like, build a competing production company, hire away the talent, beat him at his own game, embarrass him at public events, make up humiliation nicknames, wax sarcastic about his looks, that sort of thing?

Look, I get that women are very upset at creeps like HW. I get that they want to be seen and treated as equal. I get Althouse's button-pushed dismay whenever a sister gets mistreated. What I don't get is that in the last 50 years of second-wave feminism no woman has built a successful production studio, or started a great tech company, or built a hedge fund, or -- you get the picture: done anything to outwit and outhustle and outcompete the men.

Sally327 said...

"Contrast that with how they covered Trump’s statement to Billy Bush..."

And yet, he was elected President. Did the coverage help or hurt?

Henry said...

Here's another name for you: Bill Cosby.

Look who was supposed to go down -- the black square guys.

All the time that the evidence was coming out against Bill Cosby, the women that had the goods on Weinstein kept quiet.

I actually don't think this is about race. It's about power. People who abuse their power -- like Cosby, like Weinstein -- are safe so long as they can say who's hired and fired. That's been Trump's trump card his whole public life. If not for Hillary, I think Bill Clinton would have been rolled a long time ago. Bill retained his power because his wife needed it and the Democratic party needed her.

MikeD said...

Second wave, or would it be third wave, feminism died when they all started offering "crooked dick" Clinton BJ's for abortion support. Paglia is the only honest (published) feminist left from the first wave. OK,I'll pretty much put our hostess into the "one of the few left" binder. Tnx Mitt!

wildswan said...

I go along with the idea that the left factions are fighting and Weinstein is a casualty. But also I think that the Fall of Weinstein is another Trump victory in that it would not have happened had Hillary won. Weinstein would still be assaulting young women in Hollywood if Hillary was in the White House. And Bill would be assaulting young women in DC. And in the plan, Anthony Weiner would have been assaulting young women in NYC. Celebrity women who did what Mr. Disgusting wanted and got ahead that way would still be insulting the rest of us and saying how deplorable we were. Remember when Hollywood was calling all Trump supporters misogynistic "deplorables?" Yet those celebrities all knew about Weinstein. I'm surprised they didn't choke on their own words. But then they didn't choke on Weinstein.

Sally327 said...

"Bay Area Guy said...
Linda Tripp -- to whom Monica Lewinsky confided about her various trysts with Slick Willie -- was savaged by Saturday Night Live nearly every weekend for at least 6 months.

They had John Goodman play her (a big fat guy).

SNL was blocking and tackling for the Clintons. Silent on Harvey, though.

10/10/17, 7:20 PM"

You mean the woman who secretly taped her much younger friend Monica without her knowledge? Because Lucianne Goldberg advised her to do so. And then turned the tapes over to Ken Starr, again without Monica knowing anything about it, thus dropping her friend into it big time. So yes, the SNL skit was cruel but Tripp wasn't exactly Mother Teresa here.

Kevin said...

"Contrast that with how they covered Trump’s statement to Billy Bush..."

And yet, he was elected President. Did the coverage help or hurt?


To answer your question, Trump was rising in the polls and it hurt him. It took him a while to regain momentum, and if they had dropped the tape a couple of weeks later, it probably would have been fatal.

But let's take a look at how the media covered Gennifer Flowers' affair with Bill Clinton:

1. Bill and Hillary were live on 60 minutes, answering questions in real time and adjusting their answers to the follow ups.
2. Gennifer was only shown in a video clip.
3. No one was brought on to corroborate her story.
4. Bill flat out denied the affair
5. Hillary denounced Gennifer as some crazy woman who would call Bill asking for help.
6. Hillary ended the interview by saying she fully believed Bill.
7. The audience was left with the impression that Gennifer was likely lying because Hillary said so and she wasn't on the program.

Can you imagine the media today covering an alleged Trump affair by showing a video clip of the woman and allowing Donald and Melania to refute everything she said without her ability to bring witnesses or rebut their statements?

That's exactly how the media "covered" Bill Clinton's 12-year affair.

James Smith said...

Lisa Bloom has a book that is/was being developed for a movie by - wait for it - HW. HW falls, movie deal falls, and Lisa hits the road.

EMyrt said...

This would not have come out if Hilary had won.
http://datechguyblog.com/2017/10/10/harvey-weinstein-not-exposed-in-2017-if-hillary-elected-in-2016/

Kevin said...

You mean the woman who secretly taped her much younger friend Monica without her knowledge? Because Lucianne Goldberg advised her to do so. And then turned the tapes over to Ken Starr, again without Monica knowing anything about it, thus dropping her friend into it big time.

It sure created a necessary re-direct from Bill Clinton who was going to totally steamroll Lewinsky's claim of an affair with him until the cum-stained blue dress showed up.

Bill had already gone on TV, looked into the camera, and denied the affair to the American people. Hillary had already gone on the Today Show and discussed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that kept making up affairs Bill was supposedly having.

But it was Linda Tripp who got hammered week after week by SNL.

rcocean said...

BTW, if any of you follow Rod Dreher at the TAC, his response to The Weinstein Sexual Assault scandal had been laughable.

Per unadulterated Cuck.

Last week he'd wrote a couple columns where he'd start out attacking Weinstein for a paragraph and then spent the other 6 paragraphs attacking the Catholic Church.

Yesterday, he let the cat out the bag. Y'see Rod used to be a movie critic in NYC in the 1990s, and thought Harvey made a lot of good movies. So even though Weinstein was "evil" we should thank him for being such a great artist.

Seriously.

Now I Know! said...

Ann's twentieth post in five days about this Weinstein guy confirms that she just views it as a political cudgel and is not at all interested in sexual harassment in the workplace. Donald Trump on Access Hollywood (you can't make this stuff up) said that he "grabs them by the pussy" and just forcibly kisses beautiful women. Many women came forward and gave specific evidence of him sexually harassing them in the work place. But Ann did not find this of much interest. Trump only gave a non-apology apology.

Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and this Weinstein guy are all scum buckets. But Ann has only found outrage for Clinton and this Weinstein guy. Ann is happy to be a part of the right wing echo chamber and pretend that only liberals allow their political allegiances to color their judgement in how they view these individuals.

That is why Ann is a hack.

rcocean said...

"But it was Linda Tripp who got hammered week after week by SNL."

Yep. And it was Paula Jones who the target of the disgusting:

"What happens when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park?" Comment.

BTW, when some women wrote a book about her affair with JFK, while a white house intern, she got trashed by Barbara Walters. Suddenly, Babs was all worked up about Presidential dignity. LOL!

glenn said...

"My hypothesis is that liberals — including nearly everyone in the entertainment business — suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton. Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years."

My hypothesis is that oodles of Democrats, reporters, DA's and media folks liked ol Harv's cash so much they were willing to look the other way about anything he did. Including raping young women. We can see by the lives they lead that lots of those folks are scum. We shouldn't be surprised.

Dude1394 said...

Come on, this isn't rocket science here. They are covering for them because they are democrats. They get the vapors if it is a republican.

End. of. story.

They are complete and utter hypocrites who have no credibility. I'm not even inclined to get too upset about Weinstein, they didn't ask for it by dressing the way they did, but the democrat-media-party sure encouraged it.

They didn't give a SHIT about the women who were being damaged. They actually still do not, they just got caught and so now they are all in high dungeon to save their own asses.

Kevin said...

Yep. And it was Paula Jones who the target of the disgusting:

"What happens when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park?" Comment.


Yes, good ol' James Carville. He also said: "Look, if George W. Bush and his Republican cronies walked on water, I'd be the guy out there yelling that they couldn't swim."

Sally327 said...

"To answer your question, Trump was rising in the polls and it hurt him. It took him a while to regain momentum, and if they had dropped the tape a couple of weeks later, it probably would have been fatal."

So...the media is stupid?

I remember the Gennifer Flowers coverage a little differently. I remember this attractive woman coming out and saying she'd had an affair with Bill Clinton. And then Bill admitting that he had caused pain in his marriage. I remember thinking yes, he probably did because you know, he's married to Hillary and Gennifer looks like the kind of woman a man would want to have an affair with.

The story was supposed to hurt Clinton because marital infidelity was supposed to cause him problems, especially in the Bible Belt. Except it didn't, not enough anyway, because the country was changing. Maybe having elected Ronald Reagan, a divorced man, had something to do with how those issues starting being viewed. That was another big no-no until it wasn't. Trump's been married 3 times. And had a very publicized affair with wife #2 before he and wife #1 divorced. I doubt stories of an affair would move the public's view of him one way or the other.

Lucien said...

A few thoughts:

Georgina was married to this guy and only now realizes who he is? What bullshit.

Katzenberg was this guy's friend for 30 years and never knew about this side of him? What bullshit.

All of these brave actresses were silent for years and then silent for days after the initial allegations and then Harvey's board fired him and only now they come forward with "This must never happen again!"? What bullshit.

Hillary comes forward only after Harvey's board fires him? What bullshit.

I'm assuming that tonight the late night comics will finally start telling Harvey jokes. What bullshit. You pussies.

I actually give the Obamas a regretful nod of respect that they haven't joined the bandwagon. I guess in true Chicago style, when they get bought, they stay bought.

rcocean said...

"So yes, the SNL skit was cruel but Tripp wasn't exactly Mother Teresa here."

They did it, because Lewinsky was LYING to Ken Starr. Not only that, but Lewinsky and Clinton wanted TRIPP to lie UNDER OATH.

So, Tripp was right to turn her in. I Love how the Left ALWAYS tries to frame the issue. When its someone they like, then somehow the issue stops being about the criminality or the wrong being done - instead it becomes a childish "you shouldn't snitch on your friends" issue.

The Commies perfected that technique in the 1950s.

rcocean said...

You know what happens when you don't "Snitch on your friends" when crime is involved? You can get charged as an accessory to a crime.

glenn said...

And William Chadwick wins the Internet at 5:03.

Hagar said...

Whispers about sick sexual predators in Hollywood go back to the early days of "the silents,"
and whispers they remained because these guys (and probably gals we never heard about; that really was "unmentionable, even in private) held the keys to the kingdom of dreams.

So, I think I lean toward Tarrou's idea; it is Bernies vs. Clintonista.

Achilles said...

My hypothesis is that liberals — including nearly everyone in the entertainment business — suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton. Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years.

They didn't suppress sexual harassment as an issue. They went after numerous conservatives over sexual harassment issues.

This is just a massive demonstration of Fen's Law. The left doesn't give a crap about feminism or justice or equality or fairness.

The left cares about Power. Period.

FullMoon said...

Donald Trump on Access Hollywood (you can't make this stuff up) said that he "grabs them by the pussy" and just forcibly kisses beautiful women. Many women came forward and gave specific evidence of him sexually harassing them in the work place. But Ann did not find this of much interest. Trump only gave a non-apology apology.

Jesus, you are stupid. AA totally overreacted about the grabba pussy thing. You know it, you were here.
Of course your whole purpose of these stupid comments is to get mommy's attention, and a spanking . Credit where credit is due, though, it eventually works, every time.

Lucien said...

Now I Know! you should ask Althouse for a refund since she isn't meeting your blogging needs. How much did you pay again? I managed to get in free during the special offer but maybe you're on the Premium Subscriber package?

donald said...

Everybody associated with Harvey Weinstein is/were a piece of shit. These are the worst among us.

And a special fuck you bitch to his garbage wife.

Big Mike said...

Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?

I'm sorry, Professor, but I doubt it.

MadisonMan said...

Re: Georgina leaving Harvey, upthread:

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a solid prenup.

They do have two kids together, a daughter and a son. (What a thing to grow up with now!) She's got all the marbles for divorce negotiations.

JAORE said...

Monica, the blue dress, etc., isn't an example of sexual harassment.

Yes, yes it was. Even if you could be sure it was 100% consensual. Even if you discount the imbalance of power, there was sexual harassment.

For example:
Did the non-Monica interns get the same opportunities, face time (no pun intended) with the President and other VIP's? Did the others get as much help finding employment beyond the White House gig?

Sally327 said...

"They did it, because Lewinsky was LYING to Ken Starr. Not only that, but Lewinsky and Clinton wanted TRIPP to lie UNDER OATH."

Nobody could make Tripp lie. She could have given her affidavit and let the chips fall where they may. That wasn't enough, she had to wire up and get Monica to incriminate herself, because...I don't know, because she was all about truth, justice and the American way. Sorry, I just don't see Linda Tripp as a victim here.

Thinking about all this again so many years later, it was all just so absurd.

Uh...Commies? Really?

Drago said...

Sally327: "Sorry, I just don't see Linda Tripp as a victim here."

Oh really?

Well, I guess you are unfamiliar with how Tripp was being threatened.

I suggest you read up again on Billy Dale, whose only "crime" was not being a Clinton loyalist.

Obama had no problem siccing the entire US intelligence apparatus on a political opponent and Hillary/Bill had no problem getting a career govt employee falsely indicted just to move him out of a job!

tim in vermont said...

Yeah, it was absurd to make a big deal about using the power of his office to sexually harass, assault, and even rape women.

EMyrt said...

wildswan
"Yet those celebrities all knew about Weinstein. I'm surprised they didn't choke on their own words. But then they didn't choke on Weinstein."


I'm pretty sure they didn't. Fat beta guys like that always have dinky dicks. The late Al Goldstein also. They need the leverage of power to get access to pussy that's way out of their league.

Aggie - said...

Of course they all knew. This was the fare they paid to ride the bus. As Hunter S Thompson said, "Buy the ticket, take the ride."

Now a new bus has pulled up, and everyone is keen to ride. But there is still the bus fare. The best thing is, the new dues is also mostly just to parade a shocked confession, which we all know is good for the soul and makes us feel great about ourselves!

Poor old Harvey. He's got that slightly confused, discombobulated look that hogs get when they're in the chute. They've gotten nicely fattened, but now they know something in their world has changed profoundly - they just don't know precisely how big a shock is coming 'round the corner. It's the kind of profound disorientation that comes from having your best friends and colleagues line you up for the kill.

As for the actresses, well...they're not being brave, they're just ambitious.

Big Mike said...

Many women came forward and gave specific evidence of him [Trump] sexually harassing them in the work place.

I believe the number was three women, not one of whom seemed credible.

Michael K said...

Sally, you are trying too hard. I don't know why.

So yes, the SNL skit was cruel but Tripp wasn't exactly Mother Teresa here.

If Tripp had not told her to save that dress, she would have been a stalker and might have done time, if Hillary sicced the USSS on her.

Bill Clinton took the presidency off the pedestal with his "Boxers or briefs?"answer.

Bob Loblaw said...

These are the same people who are always congratulating themselves for "speaking truth to power", as if there was any chance the president was going to do something to them for pretending he was some kind of Nazi.

But someone who could actually hurt them, i.e. someone with actual power in their lives? Nary a peep. So brave, Hollywood. So strong. You people are oaks.

Lem said...

This iowahawk tweet brought it all back to me... Some of you may remember the line...

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/917728438743719937

Clyde said...

I was reading elsewhere that Weinstein has hired a new spokesperson, a lawyer with the nickname of "Ms. Glacier." Looking at the picture of her, I figured that she was probably unlikely to be a victim of any unsavory sexual advances from Mr. Weinstein.

tim in vermont said...

Let's give Bill Clinton his just deserts, then we can maybe not be talking about Trump solely from a point of view of hypocrisy.

Til then, it's just partisan nattering.

Sally327 said...

"Yeah, it was absurd to make a big deal about using the power of his office to sexually harass, assault, and even rape women.

10/10/17, 8:24 PM"

I meant specifically the Lewinsky story was absurd.

And a big deal WAS made of it. Clinton was impeached. Unfortunately too many Republicans (Bob Livingston, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde) has "private conduct" issues of their own. Nobody came out looking like a hero in this.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Sally,
"Monica, the blue dress, etc., isn't an example of sexual harassment. "

Apparently you have never been through sexual harassment training at your employment. Or else you were asleep. That is a textbook example of one of the forms of sexual harassment.

Henry said...

Everyone one coming out now with their first-hand stories about Weinstein needs to be asked a single follow-up question: Who's doing it now?

Another observation -- there's a lot of pressure on women whom Weinstein assaulted, or threatened, to tell their stories. There's pressure on other A-list stars to state what they didn't know. Where's the pressure on the men who covered for him? Other producers, his business associates, his assistants, the key grip that walked into the wrong room, or the squash partner that told no tales? Why is the pressure, and the better-late-than-never contempt directed at the women?

Sebastian said...

Meanwhile, Oprah appeared on Ellen to show she's a regular person because she went into an actual bank to deposit an actual check for the first time since 1988--nothing like hapless GHWB at the checkout counter.

The campaign has started, though to reach out to flyover country it would have helped not to divulge that the check was for $2M.

Get those white dudes outta here.

Drago said...

Many women came forward and gave specific evidence of him [Trump] sexually harassing them in the work place.

BM: "I believe the number was three women, not one of whom seemed credible"

Quite so.

We are in a moment where once again the leftists/"lifelong republicans" are being blown out of the water and the the lefties and their LLR allies are struggling mightily pulling every maneuver that has worked for them in the past only to find that something fundamental has changed.

The political/social firmament that shifted so crazily on Nov 8, 2016 continues its unpredictable movements leaving the lefties/LLR's unable to assess, internalize, comprehend and then adapt to what is happening.

Hence the hilarious and ineffectual "squirrel" tactics of the lefties/LLR's hoping everyone will just "move on".

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Just like the NFL's "Kneel-Gate". We are not "moving on".

We are going to abide here a bit and drink in the wonder that is the Fen's Law reality of the entire left and their LLR allies.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

IOW she got hers and now everyone else can screw off! Typical DNC Hillaryite hacks.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"The campaign has started, though to reach out to flyover country it would have helped not to divulge that the check was for $2M."

Right, next we'll learn that she shits in a gold toilet. Surely flyover folks won't go for that sorta thing.

Sheesh.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Or, maybe it's only a problem cause she's not a white dude.

OK.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Never name a law after a guy named "Fenne."

Three-letter names just don't have the gravitas to name a law after them. Especially three letter names that start with the same two letters as femme.

The Violent Fens.

Jim at said...

Shorter MikeR:

"Quick. Change the subject!"

Sally327 said...


"Blogger Michael K said...
Sally, you are trying too hard. I don't know why.

So yes, the SNL skit was cruel but Tripp wasn't exactly Mother Teresa here.

If Tripp had not told her to save that dress, she would have been a stalker and might have done time, if Hillary sicced the USSS on her.

Bill Clinton took the presidency off the pedestal with his "Boxers or briefs?"answer.

10/10/17, 8:29 PM"

Trying too hard, I don't know. It's probably because this all happened pre 9-11 and after that it felt like we hadn't been paying attention to the right things. It all just seems so overblown (no pun intended) looking back at it now. What did it really accomplish?

Yes, without the dress Starr couldn't have proven anything. Would have been fun to have been a fly on the wall when Bill and Hillary first heard about the dress.

Jon Burack said...

I think the Bill Clinton angle is a big factor. But for reasons I cannot fully articulate, I think something else is also going on at a deeper level. I think it is something like this: Weinstein is one side of a contradiction that is reaching a breaking point now in the culture. His is the side of the super predator male. The other side is the insane degree of victimized identity hysteria that many women, young women in particular, are being encouraged to internalize and manifest. That sense of victimization posits that all men or most men - actually any man not subject to rigorous anti-maleness re-education really - will be, are, super predators like Weinstein. And yet, super predators are tolerated, and tolerated by both the left and the right. Tolerated and sometimes idolized. There have been and still are too many of them on the right but most importantly far too many of them on the left who still are idolized. Bill Clinton is one and he still has not fallen from grace. So I wonder that Weinstein may simply be a sacrificial scapegoat figure to be burned and turned to ashes, so as to enable his community of Hollywood, Media, Democrats, etc. to contain again the contradiction and get back to a false sense of normality.

tim in vermont said...

Tina Brown weighs in... "What about Trump!?!"

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Weinstein, Trump, O'Reilly. Birds of a feather.

I don't think anyone's non-partisan about sexy harassment. You basically figure the guy's a creep from the other side of the aisle and castigate him or you lose interest in his weird, "Hey, I deserve to get laid, too!" antics.

It's either a big who cares or the worst thing in the world. The point is that sex and power still unfortunately seem to go together after all these years and all these partisans only care about it if the creepy/awkward/loutish horndog did it from across the other side of the aisle.

Even for me, I see Roger Ailes as a creep and Harvey Weinstein, as ugly as he is, as just a pathetic old penis attached to an equally aging person. Who am I to blame though? I'll be one of those myself in due course of time. Not every horny grandpa can get the girls to smile. I think the difference is if you resign yourself to your diminished expectations. They seem to find that "cute."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I think I can allow myself to see Ailes as the creepier of the two because: 1) He still had that boyishly impish and creepy grin on his face, no matter how old and bald and eighty-years on he was, and 2) He owned the building. Actors could come and go with Weinstein's production company. But with Ailes you were stuck in that right-wing dungeon of doom and short skirts until you changed careers or employers. Films are made in less time, and the producer's just funding them. Plus in acting gigs some expectation of pathos and charged behaviors are expected, and keep the making of them interesting.

I guess FOX figured they'd approach produce the news the way others do non-documentary filmmaking. Lol.

Alice Aforethought said...

Gwynn the Paltrow and Harvey Weinstein
Is like
Princess Leia and Jaba the Hutt

Original Mike said...

"Donald Trump on Access Hollywood (you can't make this stuff up) said that he "grabs them by the pussy" and just forcibly kisses beautiful women. Many women came forward and gave specific evidence of him sexually harassing them in the work place. But Ann did not find this of much interest."

The Access Hollywood story and the leak of Podesta's emails ocurred at the same time. Althouse was all over the Trump story and virtually ignored the Podesta emails. Commenters here objected to the lopsided coverage, as you must know. You are a bald-faced liar.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillarywood is as deplorable as is gets.

Jon Burack said...

One other thing, to add to my earlier comment. Ann, I do not understand why you use the phrase "suppressed sexual harassment" in seemingly a general sense. It is impossible to see the left as doing anything other than hyping sexual harassment as an issue endlessly since the late 1990s. In what sense have the suppressed it other than in relation to their own super predator alpha male idols? Otherwise, they have obsessed over it. To the extent that now, thanks to the Title IX distortions of 2011, we have sexual harassment kangaroo courts conducted by universities and colleges TOTALLY untrained and unauthorized to conduct any sort of judicial process.

exiledonmainstreet said...

MikeD said...
Second wave, or would it be third wave, feminism died when they all started offering "crooked dick" Clinton BJ's for abortion support. Paglia is the only honest (published) feminist left from the first wave."

MikeD: First wave feminism was the woman's suffragette movement in the late 19th- early 20th century that culminated in the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Second wave feminism began with the publication of Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and gathered steam in the 1960's and the 1970's. Third wave feminism is an offshoot of toxic PC culture and began in the academies in the late 1980's.

That's my understanding anyway. Althouse might not agree with my timelines.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Hillarywood is as deplorable as is gets.

Lol. If Don Trump asked what you could do for your country, and then went all Access Hollywood on you, I guarantee you'd let him Bill Clinton you. Or kiss forcibly. Or grab by the you-know-what.

I know you would. You would just lean back and remind yourself that you're doing it for your country. For the good of getting rid of Hillary, or whatever.

Trumpists will sell themselves cheap. I'm positive of it.

Francisco D said...

Ritmo has awakened!

Bye.

Ty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The left are finding it difficult to circle the wagons ... so right on Q - -"But Trump!"

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Second-wave feminists are the ones who hate sex and want to ban porn. Dworkin, McKinnon. They said all sex is rape.

Third-wave feminists are the ones who LIKE sex. And aren't averse to porn.

PC SJW feminists aren't sure what sex is, really, but vaguely feel that it's something they shouldn't think too much about, lest they lose focus on how society oppresses them.

Gospace said...

I think as I read the comments here, a lot of people are forgetting just how new this internet thingy is. Our hostess here has been blogging since 2004. Bill Clinton left office January 2001. Drudgereport as a website didn't start until 1997. After Bill Clinton's election to a second term. The blog biggie, Instapundit, didn't start until 2001.

It's going to be really difficult for future historians to determine when the internet really became decisive in elections, but somewhere between Obama's reelection and Trump's election would be a good timeframe. Trump's victories in the primaries and subsequent victory in the general election were solely due to the internet as his rabid supporters realized they weren't alone-and voted for him. In large numbers. And the Democrats got the weak candidate they they wanted who they could easily defeat...

All of us here who read and comment on Althouse on political junkies. Even without Althouse and Glenn Reynolds and other blogs to tell us about, we know the details of Whitewater, the blue dress, cattle future investing, and all the other assorted scandals. I knew about Hillary throwing an ashtray at Bill months before the media reported on it. (Someone who worked for me- his mother lived next door to the mother of a Secret Service agent....) But most people, today, don't know about the details of any of those. They predate the internet becoming a primary news source.

In the last 4 presidential elections I have often said you could could pretty easily determine who someone was going to vote for by asking where they get their news from. And the old quote, attributed to Mark Twain, "if you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read the news, you're misinformed." comes to mind today when thinking about the state of the MSM. Which is doing a remarkable job of not covering the Senator Menendez trial. But reports breathlessly in every major MSM news outlet that when boarding a flight to Texas, Melania wore inappropriate high heels. It's become impossible to hide the hypocrisy. And impossible to hide the real news. Real news gets out despite best efforts to smother it with a pillow until it stops moving.

And then there's government itself, trying to hide the truth, even today. Is there a single person reading this blog who believes the government didn't know Paddock's motive for his shoot'em'up within 12 hours? I don't. But whatever the motive is, and there's all kinds of speculation, the powers that be want it to remain hidden. And I'll bet the MSM was less than an hour behind the government in figuring it out. So we're left with speculation.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Lem 8:33 - good find.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The left are finding it difficult to circle the wagons ... so right on Q - -"But Trump!"

Because your hypocrisy alerts us to your lack of credibility. We look at an issue, figure it's non-partisan, and then our friends on the right remind us that they're just being opportunistic about it all along.

It's a litmus test. Tell us what Trump and O'Reilly were accused of that you'd be ok with them doing, esp. to you.

Now I Know! said...

Ann last year wrote one qualified critical post about Trump's "grab them by the pussy" brag. She did not do so for all of the women who stepped forward about Trump harassing them in the work place. We all know that Trump is Weinstein's equal. But Ann was not interested in that.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Gospace - the guy did it for Bernie. that's my guess.

Paddy O said...

"I do not understand why you use the phrase "suppressed sexual harassment" in seemingly a general sense."

It's in the post, as well as throughout Althouse's interest in this topic going way, way back. Basically, she has highlighted how the issue is consistently suppressed in relation to the Clintons (and other political players), making the hyping elsewhere not a sincere interest in stopping sexual harassment, but rather using it as a political power player. Thus not really feminist empowering, but rather using feminism as a tool for partisan interests. Suppression doesn't have to be total, as the selective use of it can actually encourage sexual harassment by protected categories (like chosen politicians and wealthy donors). The harassment in Hollywood was sheltered, the issue suppressed, so as not to make it an issue for the Clintons.

That's why it didn't stick for Trump. Having suppressed the issue, they couldn't selectively highlight it again, without making it an issue against the Clintons. If the Democrats had been consistent with it back in the 90s, not turned against the victims, Hollywood would have likely not been given a free pass for sexual harassment because they supported the Clintons. And it would have been a bigger issue against Trump. Effectively, support for the Clintons was the way sexual harassers protected their harassing.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

O'Reilly paid off a bunch of women, much like Harvey - though Harvey to a greater degree, and Harvey's crimes are much much worse, as we learn more by the day.
I never defended O'Reilly.
Leftists have credibility issues. All of you.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Again, the left are finding it difficult to do what they usually do.
Which they did try yesterday, but it failed miserably. The Hillary lie of VAST RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Ty quoted

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

--Nina Burleigh

The real theocracy is radial Islam and the radical left.

Molly said...

I think that there are a couple differences between Bill Clinton and Weinstein. Bill Clinton (with Hillary's support) denied denied denied. And it was easy to believe the denials for a number of reasons: Bill Clinton was not just the President, he was the Rhodes Scholar President. His accusers were well not really like people we knew. (With the possible exception of Kathleen WIlley) Some of his partners if they were his partners weren't really complaining (Gennifer Flowers). The importance of the blue dress was that it was no longer possible to believe Clinton in this one incident.

With Weinstein, he did not deny once the assertions came to light. His accusers were familiar types to us (as actresses we had seen on the screen). And Weinstein himself seemed so unattractive, that it was difficult to believe that these young beautiful women actually were physically attracted to him.

Nevertheless, I agree completely with the main assertion in Althouse's post. We were (after the Clarence Thomas confirmation) at a point where there appeared to be widespread agreement that sexual harassment was unacceptable. I clearly remember a conservative republican senator (may Orrin Hatch) saying, "If Clarence Thomas actually did what he is accused of, he is not fit to be on the supreme court." But no Democrat would say, just a few years later, "If Bill Clinton actually did what he is accused of, he is not fit to be President." Instead we got deflections, like "It's just about sex, everybody does it and lies about it" and "don't be such a blue-nosed prig".

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I never defended O'Reilly.

Who defended Weinstein?

Harvey's crimes are...

Are what, exactly? Is he being prosecuted? Do you know the difference between civil and criminal law?

Probably not.

Leftists have credibility issues.

Lol. Why don't you go see if you can answer the above questions, first. Credibility? Being ignorant doesn't give one credibility, winger.

Lem said...

The real "collusion" has been between the press and Hollywood.

Not Putin and Trump.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The real theocracy is radial Islam and the radical left.

Lo! You said this as a finishing touch on your plea to keep women's bodies beholden to Vatican standards. Theocracy, indeed!

I think sometimes one side of your brain doesn't know what the other side is thinking.

Gahrie said...

To the extent that now, thanks to the Title IX distortions of 2011, we have sexual harassment kangaroo courts conducted by universities and colleges TOTALLY untrained and unauthorized to conduct any sort of judicial process.

But that is necessary to deal with the fact that 20% of women who attend college are raped. Or so I've been told, and Althouse refuses to deny it.

Gahrie said...

When did not killing your baby become only a Vatican standard?

exiledonmainstreet said...

What other horrible crimes are Hollywood stars covering up?

10/10/17, 5:15 PM

Goodness, the casting couch has existed in Hollywood since the days of the Keystone Cops. And even before - Flo Ziegfeld's relationships with his stars were not platonic. Charlie Chaplin chased underage girls. So did Errol Flynn. The movie moguls of the 30's were even cruder than Weinstein. Show business doesn't attract monks and nuns. So I have no doubt Hollywood is presently covering up crimes and has always done so.

The difference is that contemporary Hollywood presumes to lecture the rest of America on our myriad moral failings. We're bad, we're racist, we're sexist, we're destroying the planet, we voted for Trump, we own guns, etc.etc. etc. Getting scolding continually by a pack of wealthy whores, druggies, and generally fucked up people is annoying so it is satisfying to see one of the hypocrites receive his comeuppance. Flo Zeigfield might have bonked plenty of showgirls, but at least he didn't pretend to be anything but an entertainer.

Meade said...

"I do not understand why you use the phrase "suppressed sexual harassment" in seemingly a general sense."

Read her post again. The phrase "suppressed sexual harassment" is a misquote.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

When did not killing your baby become only a Vatican standard?

Probably when they decided that fertilized eggs were babies.

But at least they're progressing. Back in the day they thought the sperm themselves were the babies!

What's wrong with that standard? Or would saving and incubating every last drop of your sperm be more difficult than you'd like?

I guess that makes it easier seeing as how no woman has any need of your ejaculate.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The difference is that contemporary Hollywood presumes to lecture the rest of America on our myriad moral failings. We're bad, we're racist, we're sexist, we're destroying the planet, we voted for Trump, we own guns, etc.etc. etc.

And Puritan, too!

Getting scolding continually by a pack of wealthy whores, druggies, and generally fucked up people...

See, you proved the point!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Is rape legal if you're a big rich fat cat movie mogul democrat bundler?
I have no idea.

walter said...

"when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Democrats reversed the message. In the biggest sellout of feminism I've seen in my lifetime, sexual harassment turned into just sex,"

Hmm..was the big Lewenski a case of sexual harassment?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 274   Newer› Newest»