October 10, 2017

The New Yorker exposé of Harvey Weinstein hits.

"From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories/Multiple women share harrowing accounts of sexual assault and harassment by the film executive," by Ronan Farrow.

I haven't seen Drudge put up his siren in a long time. The headline there is: "MAG: THREE WOMEN ACCUSE WEINSTEIN OF RAPE."

First, Farrow excuses the failure of journalists to report the stories that have surrounded Weinstein for more than 20 years:
This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few women were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now––Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old, some of them are older—has never come out.”
The New Yorker story was scooped by the NYT, but Farrow says he's been working on it for 10 months. Presumably the NYT knew the New Yorker story was in the offing and got the jump on it, and Farrow stresses that he talked to 13 women, whose allegations "corroborate and overlap" with what was in the NYT and that he also has "far more serious claims."
Three women––among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.


Farrow also talked to 4 actresses — including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette — who say that they rebuffed Weinstein and may have been retaliated against.
Farrow says he talked to 16 "former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies" who said they had seen or knew about sexual assaults by Weinstein. Farrow says there was "a culture of complicity" within these companies, and that employees participated in "subterfuge" to make a young woman feel safe in a meeting and then leave her alone with Weinstein.

There follow detailed descriptions of rape, showing the tactics Weinstein used. You can go to the link to read that. Excerpt:

“It was like it was just another day for him,” [Lucia] Evans said. “It was no emotion.” Afterward, she said, he acted as if nothing had happened. She wondered how Weinstein’s staff could not know what was going on.... [T]he entire sequence of events had a routine quality. “It feels like a very streamlined process,” she said. “Female casting director, Harvey wants to meet. Everything was designed to make me feel comfortable before it happened. And then the shame in what happened was also designed to keep me quiet.”

Evans said that, after the incident, “I just put it in a part of my brain and closed the door.” She continued to blame herself for not fighting harder. “It was always my fault for not stopping him,” she said. “I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing.”...

[Asia] Argento said that, in 1997, one of Weinstein’s producers invited her to what she understood to be a party thrown by Miramax... When the producer led her upstairs that evening, she said, there was no party—only a hotel room, empty but for Weinstein: “I’m, like, ‘Where is the fucking party?’ ”...  At first, Weinstein was solicitous, praising her work. Then he left the room. When he returned, he was wearing a bathrobe and holding a bottle of lotion. “He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, ‘Look man, I am no fucking fool,’ ” Argento said. “But, looking back, I am a fucking fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.... The thing with being a victim is I felt responsible... Because if I were a strong woman, I would have kicked him in the balls and run away. But I didn’t. And so I felt responsible.”...
Mira Sorvino, who starred in several of Weinstein’s films, told me that he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into a physical relationship while they worked together.... Sorvino said that she struggled for years with whether to come forward with her story, partly because she was aware that it was mild compared to the experiences of other women, including another actress she spoke to at the time.....
The audio recording (embedded above) exists because Gutierrez went to the police and agreed that she "would wear a wire and attempt to extract a confession or incriminating statement." With that recording, why wasn't Weinstein charged with a crime?
“We had the evidence,” the police source involved in the operation told me. “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”
There's the story of Rosanna Arquette:
[W]hen she arrived at the [hotel] room, Weinstein opened the door wearing a white bathrobe. Weinstein said that his neck was sore and that he needed a massage. She told him that she could recommend a good masseuse. “Then he grabbed my hand,” she said. He put it on his neck. When she yanked her hand away, she told me, Weinstein grabbed it again and pulled it toward his penis, which was visible and erect. “My heart was really racing. I was in a fight-or-flight moment,” she said. She told Weinstein, “I will never do that.”

Weinstein told her that she was making a huge mistake by rejecting him, and named an actress and a model who he claimed had given in to his sexual overtures and whose careers he said he had advanced as a result. Arquette said she told him, “I’ll never be that girl,” and left.

Arquette said that after she rejected Weinstein her career suffered....

313 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 313 of 313
Quaestor said...

This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond...

And beyond? What's further out than Hollywood? Mordor?

...previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence.

That's hard to swallow. It's been abundantly clear for decades that the "demands of journalistic evidence" is a bar about as low as a flatworm's limbo stick. Anything more credible than febrile hallucination passed muster. Quaestor is not one to cut HW any slack. I'd like to see his hide nailed to the cathedral door, but as a punishment justly warranted. Nevertheless, Farrow's red-hot prose leads me to suspect a lynching is in progress.

The NYT has spiked stories about Weinstein's transgressions since Kerry ran against G. W. Bush because of the scandal would inevitably stain the Democrat elite. The real reason this story broke when it did is much more political than meets the casual eye.

In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.”

And why no indictment? There's a much more important story there than this sexual assault crap, Mr. Ronan Farrow. If you had a real talent for journalism you'd have already realized that. Instead, what you've done is wallow in low-brow shit more befitting a supermarket tabloid.

On the other hand, perhaps you followed editorial policy to the letter, and my contempt is unjust? It's possible. The New Yorker once was a periodical for urbane sophisticates. Well, those are long gone like passenger pigeons. In their stead, we have urban sophists, and a sleaze mag version of The New Yorker may be just the ticket — I'll have a pack of Salem 100 Lights, a root beer Big Gulp, a chili-dog with onions, and a New Yorker

Chuck said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
The mob likes it because Weinstein can stand for all men's behavior and an argument for all sorts of new laws and protections, a leftist heaven.

Conservatives ought to be noticing that such new laws produce exclusively bad side effects. Men no longer associate with women, for starters.

There was actually something worthwhile with men interacting with women, with all the flirtations, grudges, fears, needs, posturings that go with it. All the stuff that makes marriage different from gay marriage, in fact.

First, I think I agree with everything you wrote.

Second, never lose sight of Democrats' desire to create new civil causes of action. More causes of action = more business for trial lawyers. More business for trial lawyers = more contributions to Dems.

buwaya said...

"Nevertheless, Farrow's red-hot prose leads me to suspect a lynching is in progress."
....
"The real reason this story broke when it did is much more political than meets the casual eye."

Yes and yes. This all smells of a planned hit. This was done for a reason, and its not that Weinstein was nasty to some women.

johns said...

Bay Area Guy said:
"It just seems crazy to me that these famous, powerful, mostly rich ADULTS (Congressmen, President, studio execs), can't even duplicate the harmless fun and mirth we enjoyed as teenagers 35 years ago -- in Los Angeles of all places."
I think you're right, that they (i.e. HW) could have all the (non-famous) women they want. But hot and/or famous actresses are a different commodity. It strokes the ego to say "I had her" when she is someone who is well-known or soon-to-be-well-known screen actress.

mandrewa said...

Four thousand, five hundred seventy-six women. That's my quick estimate.

Four times a week, fifty-two weeks in a year, twenty-two years. That may be on the low side. Did he do this more than once a day? Did he do it seven days a week? When did he start?

I'm thinking that after listening to the audio. He's a rapist. I mean that's the core of what he wants. He wants the shock. He wants his victims to be upset.

This is a guy that could have had hundreds of willing sexual partners, and well I'm sure he did. But that wasn't enough. He wanted rape.

Kevin said...

Paltrow and Jolie were both at one time involved romantically with Brad Pitt, Paltrow at the time of the incident. Makes it awfully hard now for Hollywood's leading men to keep claiming that they didn't know how bad Weinstein behavior was.

Now we know:

"Gwyneth Paltrow said that after signing her on for a role at 22, Weinstein brought her in for one of his hotel room meetings and attempted to give her a massage, as well as invite her into his bedroom. She told her boyfriend at the time, Brad Pitt, who confirmed through a representative that he confronted Weinstein about the incident and told him to stay away from Paltrow, but she never reported the harassment and said she was “expected to keep the secret.”

Angelina Jolie also said she had her own “bad experience” with Weinstein — also in a hotel room — during the release of the 1998 movie Playing By Heart, and decided to never work with him again."

So Pitt knew and Damon knew, but Affleck and Clooney just had no idea!

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

The FEC list of Weinstein's political contributions:

DSCC
John Kerry (D-MA)
Obama (D-IL)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Bill Clinton (D-AR)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Jo Ann Davis
Rob Whitman
Robert Scott
Barbara Mukulski (D-MD)
Diane Gross Farrell
William Frist
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Kennedy

Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)

Rahm Emanuel

John Gregory Chachas
Robert "The Torch" Torricelli
Patrick Leahy
Charles Schmuer (D-NY)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Harry Reid (D-NV)

Erskine Bowles
Tom Dashle (D-SD)
Martin Heinrich
Edward Lamont
Robert Casey Jr (D-PA)
David Yassky
George Allen

Richard Gephardt
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Timothy Bishop
Alison Grimes
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

No wonder Now I Know! is so upset by this story.

rhhardin said...

I'm thinking that after listening to the audio. He's a rapist. I mean that's the core of what he wants. He wants the shock. He wants his victims to be upset.

That might be a good analysis, but would not help the cause.

It would make it anti-Weinstein specifically, and not as a representative of all men.

Bay Area Guy said...

Well done, Exile!

That list is obvious bipartisan -- because William Frist is on it:) heh, heh

DKWalser said...

A question for Althouse: are you ever going to credit the sources and journalists -- specifically NYT and The New Yorker?

Chuck -- Serious question: What credit now is due the NYT when it had the story in 2004 and didn't run it? HW is virtually bankrupt. His ability to bankroll future movies is suspect as is his ability to keep literally dozens of journalists and editors in his employ -- working on 'projects' in exchange for their not pursuing his sordid story. The point is that any major paper could have published the NYT's and The New Yorker's articles decades ago. They all kept quiet until -- why? HW can no longer to them and their friends favors? HW can no longer punish them by withholding advertising? I suspect that there are a variety of reasons that we're only hearing about this now. None of them is that the media finally learned of it or that the media gained a conscience.

Kevin said...

A question for Althouse: are you ever going to credit the sources and journalists -- specifically NYT and The New Yorker?

Haven't we already established the NYT ran the story just to get in front of the New Yorker and save its own ass? I don't think we owe them any kudos.

And how about the LA Times? They've done a bang-up job of exposing what everyone knew was going on in the company town that is in their own back yard.

Oh right, they were nowhere to be found.

BxBomber said...

I think now all the actresses that have ever been associated with HW will now need to come out to say they were harassed by him, but were able to thwart his advances. To say nothing about this would mean either that you let HW assault you for your career success or even worse, the pig man never tried with you because he found you unattractive.

Hence the recent statements by Jolie and Paltrow. Soon there will be dozens. But I think they are lying. My guess is every successful actress in Hollywood associated with HW has let him go there.

Other points:
1) The impact of this is immense. Like a neutron bomb going off in Hollywood. No Hollywood actor will be able to get on there moral soapbox and preach to deplorable America ever again. In fact, I think this is the end of Hollywood as we know it.
2) Why were the more poltically vocal liberal actors so close to HW? Streep, Clooney, Damon, Lawrence... All of them were close to HW and were most vocal in attacking Trump. Something fishy about that and I wonder if this was all a Clinton/HW manipulation. Something about what Hillary said after the Matt Lauer interview last year, if Trump wins we are all going to hang or something like that. This HW matter seems connected somehow.
3) There will be more and worse examples of this. Recent reports of producers holding indescreet video of Actors as leverage will become exposed soon.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Dan Osborne,

I think now all the actresses that have ever been associated with HW will now need to come out to say they were harassed by him, but were able to thwart his advances.

Don't forget the potted plants. They have rights too.

donald said...

You'd think Paul Sorvimo would be in a position to make a call. IYKWIMAITYD.

Kevin said...

Why were the more poltically vocal liberal actors so close to HW? Streep, Clooney, Damon, Lawrence... All of them were close to HW and were most vocal in attacking Trump. Something fishy about that and I wonder if this was all a Clinton/HW manipulation. Something about what Hillary said after the Matt Lauer interview last year, if Trump wins we are all going to hang or something like that. This HW matter seems connected somehow.

Trump "outed" Joe Scarborough and Mika B's relationship via Twitter a few months back. There may have been a fear that he would find out about, or knew about and could use, HW's charges and relationship with the Dems if he saw fit.

Someone might have wanted to send it a robot to blow up that charge before Donald could use it against them and take credit for cleaning up Hollywood.

Titus said...

Chuck, Fox and Rush and Sean don't investigate or break news-they just report it and twist it for their ignorant audience.

You do have to give the credit to the NYTimes. They are fabulous.

Ralph L said...

What's a law school grad business school student doing working as a temp. receptionist? Why does she want a "career in the movie industry" after all that expensive education?

Don't producers have casting agencies to pick their starlets and HR for everyone else? These women wanted not to get to the front of the line, but to avoid it all together.

Kevin said...

You do have to give the credit to the NYTimes. They are fabulous.

Yes! They have the resources to do actual journalism, but prefer to print unattributed accounts of Russians putting Trump in office that time and again never seem to hold up at the most basic questioning.

In that regard, they are par excellence!

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--an interesting question. I think you are wily enough to ask why now? Why Harvey Weinberg?

Some possible answers that involve something other than a righteous campaign for Social Justice:
1. Trump is in the White House, not Clinton. Who remembers Bill?
2. Maybe we can get Hillary to shut up.
3. This is the first anniversary of the whole pussy grabbing tape story. Maybe we can give it new life.
4. Harvey Weinstein is old, passe, and broke. Who's afraid of him today?
5. We have to get this out well ahead of 2018 and certainly 2020. It's already old news on October 10.
6. Gun control is a busted flush. We have to get a new controversy going to get the NRA back in its cage.
7. If we break the story, we don't look like hypocrites so much.
8. Did you see how much he raised for the DNC? He was never going to do that again (see 4. above).

And on and on. Kudos to the NYT and the New Yorker, but no halos.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"You do have to give the credit to the NYTimes. They are fabulous."

They spiked the story back in 2004,thus ensuring that HW would be able to continue his nasty ways for another 13 years.

Fabulous!

Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary Speaks! (through a spokesman):

"I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior."

5 day wait for that thin gruel?

Maybe, you should bake a pie for your besieged neighbor, Hillary.

Rick said...

No Hollywood actor will be able to get on there moral soapbox and preach to deplorable America ever again. In fact, I think this is the end of Hollywood as we know it.

Way too strong. Feminists continued feministing even as the Clinton saga played on. Hypocrisy means nothing so long as everyone in a position to impact anything agrees. As long as Hollywood espouses left wing values we'll be hearing about it.

Drago said...

Titus: "Chuck, Fox and Rush and Sean don't investigate or break news-they just report it and twist it for their ignorant audience"

Yes, a lefty just wrote that, just now, on this topic, without irony.

That's some lifelong republican level Logic Fail right there!

CStanley said...

5 day wait for that thin gruel?

There are a lot of women who have been waiting a lot longer than 5 days for her to say the same about the revelations about her husband's behavior.

Drago said...

So, apparently, the word has gone out from Lefty Central for all leftists and their lifelong republican allies to keep mentioning Rush and Fox News anchors because shut up.

Amadeus 48 said...

And also:

9. Robert Iger, CEO of Disney which owns Miramax, is touting himself as a potential Dem candidate for president in 2020. NFW.
10. These Hollywood types are killing the Dems. We have to shut them up.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Tweet claim: Les Grossman was patterned after Harvey Weinstein. Entourage had their version also.

Everybody knew except Hillary.

Kevin said...

What Hillary really meant:

"I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein every time a new one came up. The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated anymore. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior which is why I kept the gravy train flowing by withholding my support until now."

Rick said...

Slightly OT: Rob Reiner shows he knows how to focus on what's really important.


'Weinstein is a bad guy but Trump is far worse'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4964890/Rob-Reiner-slams-Weinstein-calls-Trump-abuser.html

I wonder where Harvey got the idea fighting the NRA and criticizing Trump was going to get him clear of this mess.

Drago said...

Everybody knew except Hillary.

And "Now I know", and Titus, and Chuck, and anyone else who depends on the "fabulous" NYT for information.

n.n said...

This may be Democrats cleaning house in a negotiated compromise to sacrifice low hanging fruit and shutter some otherwise powerful voices of dissent. Perhaps a cleanup operation stemming from Water Closet.

Drago said...


I wonder where Harvey got the idea fighting the NRA and criticizing Trump was going to get him clear of this mess.


From the voluminous support those types of efforts generate from the leftists and their lifelong republican allies.

Quaestor said...

You do have to give the credit to the NYTimes. They are fabulous.

i.e. the creations of primitive imagination.

Titus, you are such a tool.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Another tweet: “JUST IN: Weinstein's desperate email to Hwood CEOs, moguls hours before his firing. Read to me by a disgusted (male) recipient”

https://twitter.com/janicemin/status/917485536020905984

Amadeus 48 said...

And in addition:

11. This NFL national anthem protest thing has gotten way out of hand and is killing the Dems. ESPN is dying. We gotta change the subject.

tim in vermont said...

Bill Clinton. When?

I give you the amazing perfection of the liberal information bubble.

Nonapod said...

My default position is to disbelieve conspiracy theories outright, but the whole "Why now?" question is a fascinating one. Maybe it could be summed up as just Hollywood and the MSM attempting to clean their closet of all skeletons. They want to be able to one day return to the moral high ground, the most valuable piece of realestate in the culture war.

Not that it wasn't ever glaringly obvious how unobjectively anti-Trump the NYT is, but at least it's now been admitted on tape (O'Keef strikes again).

Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary was "..shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein."

Me too. Particularly, his vicious assault on an innocent piece of vegetation.

Sebastian said...

@DK: "It's as if they didn't see sexual harassment as a real problem but as a tool for destroying those they disagreed with." Of course, and it still is. With an occasional exception: they don't "disagree" with HW, but feign outrage, strictly instrumentally, as part of left-on-left war.

When empires fall, the parts fight as they separate. The Clinton empire has fallen. Now white Jewish men can be sacrificed as the female POC rise, with O making calls in the background.

gerry said...

Begging and pleading for sex was not much different from begging for academy awards.

Except begging for an Oscar does not involve physical abuse, which is pretty much what sex under duress is...unless you're willing to call it prostitution. Either way, it's bad.

Birches said...

I'm struck by how similar these incidents are to the Ben Rothlisberger rape case. Big group, people leave so that they're alone. It seems like a set up. But Rothlisberger was not in a position of power over that girl, so she went to the cops immediately afterwards.

I have to think that Hollywood is completely messed up. So many of these women have been abused and degraded that they're not really sure if what happened was really bad or not, or if it is just normal. Yikes.

Also, let's just noticed how many of these women recognize that one on one meetings with studio execs isn't normal. And then think about how Mike Pence is treated.

gerry said...

Maybe it could be summed up as just Hollywood and the MSM attempting to clean their closet of all skeletons.

Or, with ticket sales down and Netflix threatening theater venues, the Weinstein cash cow was becoming a little too thin for the risks involved when milking it?

Wince said...

Trump is right again: "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

"I'm a famous guy... [Why yesterday you touch my breast?] I'm used to that."


And I'd have to say Cy Vance Jr. is in a world of hurt right now.

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
A question for Althouse: are you ever going to credit the sources and journalists -- specifically NYT and The New Yorker? This is the sort of expose' that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never attempt, much less run, if it involved Trump. They would be actively undermining the sources and their stories.

Full stop"

When has Rush or Hannity ever done any expose involving anyone on the left? You are such a fucking twit.

Just stop.

BxBomber said...

Rick said...
No Hollywood actor will be able to get on there moral soapbox and preach to deplorable America ever again. In fact, I think this is the end of Hollywood as we know it.

Way too strong. Feminists continued feministing even as the Clinton saga played on. Hypocrisy means nothing so long as everyone in a position to impact anything agrees. As long as Hollywood espouses left wing values we'll be hearing about it.

I dont know Rick, like NFL ratings, Hollywood movies are way down. The only things that generate interest are HBO shows that need to have soft core porn to build an audience. The MONEY is drying up. This seems like a watershed moment to me, a point where the most well known producer, who everyone knew was a pig, could no longer hold it together. He didnt have the power or the juice. There are many more pig men in Hollywood. They cant keep the genie out of the bottle any longer. The stink has become too great and they dont have the money to pay off everyone.

gerry said...

I'd like to see his hide nailed to the cathedral door

In Wittenburg?

Ralph L said...

one on one meetings with studio execs isn't normal
Every girl likes to feel special
Before the splooge.

Chuck said...

For the record; Ann Althouse is and always has been a much, much bigger fan of the New York Times than I've ever been. I presume she's been a long-time subscriber. I'm not. Never have been. I'm a Wall Street Journal guy. I will say; Althouse and I are both subscribers to the New Yorker. But of course I think we both understand that the David Remnick-edited New Yorker is an organ of the DNC. But we both -- I presume -- read it for other reasons.

Anyway this "LLR" bullshit has gotten to be such low grade nonsense. It doesn't merit any reply.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Democrat/Hollywood/New York axis is taking a beating this week.

Maybe, the "neutron bomb" analogy mentioned above is more apt.

Why do all these rich leftwingers sexually assault other leftwingers?

tcrosse said...

Après moi le splooge.

Krumhorn said...

Why should anyone be put in that position, female or male? It isn't seduction, it isn't courtship. It's commerce. Harvey should have hired hookers. He was using his power and position instead of his bankroll. But he was also soiling people who did not deserve it

Hookers don't provide the requisite level of quivering fear that animated Harvey. Arquette said, "He’s going to be working very hard to track people down and silence people,” she explained. “To hurt people. That’s what he does.”

“I was very petrified,” de Caunes said. “But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.” She added, “It was like a hunter with a wild animal. The fear turns him on.”

I worked for David Begelman when he was at MGM (after the forgery thing at Columbia). He was every bit of a dominating figure as Weinstein and could easily have played the same games. But his choice was always high-end hookers. An unending stream of them. No complications. No begging. No NDA. No coercive conduct.

I always admired that. He kept it simple. He didn't thrive on a woman's whimpering fear and submission. The fatter, richer, and more powerful they are, the more peculiar are their fetishes and fantasies. Begelman would never have jerked off into a potted plant unless it was a paid potted plant and a damn fine looking potted plant at that.

He later swallowed a barrel because he had many demons. Harvey will do the same. The very central aspect of his self-perception has disintegrated. He will get no second chance. He's finished. There's nothing to live for.

And Freeman Hunt nailed it, as she so often does. She got the dialogue down perfectly. Any young woman would have had a difficult decision to make. The sad thing is that his clumsy abusive approach probably worked more often than not. Which is considerably more than can be said about my more refined, witty, and charming come-on.

- Krumhorn

tim in vermont said...

Cyrus Vance, that's another real Democrat insider name. Maybe the boil on the Democrat ass that is the Clintons is bursting.

If you were a rich scumbag with no principles and who might need press cover, which party would you choose?

Big Mike said...

Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation.

I'm going to disagree with some of my fellow commentators upthread. Actresses may not be paid as well as the top male actresses, but being shut out of multimillion paydays thanks to Harvey is nothing for an actress to take lightly. There are a number of actresses whose careers seemed to be going great, then suddenly one never sees them again? Not due to an obvious lack of talent so why? Retaliation by a network of producers that includes Harvey Weinstein as a key player? Possible. And sometimes the fear of retaliation is enough by itself.

BTW, the Daily Mail writes that Hillary Clinton has finally owned up to being "shocked and appalled" by Harvey Weinstein, though she's not giving up any of the money he raised for her. Hillary has two signature moves: squeezing each penny until Abe Lincoln pleads for mercy, and wetting the tip of her finger then holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing. Question for the Dumbocrats on this thread: you really, truly, thought that she was presidential material?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"He later swallowed a barrel because he had many demons. Harvey will do the same"

Harvey's strongly anti-gun. I'm sure he'd never own or use one of those evil boomsticks, right?

Krumhorn said...

Harvey's strongly anti-gun. I'm sure he'd never own or use one of those evil boomsticks, right?

Interesting question. The thing about lefties is that they are more than happy to have a spare dacha down on the shores of the Black Sea while our families are living in one bedroom apartments. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he has been issued a concealed carry permit...which while theoretically legal to have in CA, are almost impossible to get unless you're ....well, you know...connected.

Guns for me, but not for thee.

- Krumhorn

Lydia said...

Farrow's red-hot prose leads me to suspect a lynching is in progress.

Maybe related: "Harvey Weinstein Helped Woody Allen Save His Career After Abuse Allegations"

Achilles said...

Blogger Original Mike said...
"Was Weinstein the only movie maker in town?"

Do you think he was the only person running a casting couch in Hollywood?

I am betting the casting couch is the norm not the exception.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck takes time out from dragging Hannity & Rush into a complete HW and dems corruption/complicity thread while engaging in fellow traveler banter with lefty Titus to complain about being called out as a "LLR".

What bad luck eh Chuck?

I mean, there you were, being your normal "Real Conservative-y" self and, gosh darn it, you accidentally ended up right smack dab in the middle of the lefties daily talking points!!

Again!

I mean, how "unlucky" can a "Real Conservative" get? Not to mention that you self-associate with those at the New Yorker who are the real "educated" folks who "really understand what is going on"!

Why it's almost like you were running around calling obama "magnificent" or something...oh. Right. You did.

Dang it! More bad luck for a "Real Conservative"!

Drago said...

Achilles: "I am betting the casting couch is the norm not the exception"

I believe its time for Sessions to launch a full scale investigation into the Hollywood set to uncover the truth behind all the pedophile and underage sex goings on.

I mean, sure, the lefties and their "accidental" LLR allies will wail to high heaven, but that would simply mean we are getting closer to the truth.

Bay Area Guy said...

All the victims of Harvey's sexual misdoings should join in filing a RICO claim against the Weinstein Company. It would take down the company a la Enron. Too much cover-up, too many NDAs, too many pay-offs with corporate money.

The potted plant may have standing issues, but the remaining victims wouldn't.

Let a thousand subpoenas bloom!

Anonymous said...

I get a kick out of the statement that not enough women would give permission to use their names so New Yorker couldn't publish about Weinstein. The New Yorker regularly publishes garbage from Seymour Hersh that is built on nothing but anonymous sources. Why should the Weinstein story be treated any differently?

Leigh said...

Why isn't the FBI investigating Cyrus Vance, Jr. for bribery?

Why isn't Hillary Clinton calling on Harvey to suspend all NDAs when it comes to his sexual conduct? Surely she would want to marshal all resources to help investigate and stop the exploitation of young, vulnerable women.

(JK)

Ray - SoCal said...

On the Libertarian / Conservative Side for Investigation:

- Project Veritas (one just came out on the NY Times)
- Breitbart
- Reason Magazine
- Mike Cernovitch
- Judical Watch
- Fire

On the Left for Investigation:
- Propublica
- All the Major Newspapers - NY Times, LA Times, WP, Chicago Tribune, etc.
- CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
- ACLU
- Universities
- Leftist funded organizations / websites such as Media Now, etc.
- Environmental Groups

None of the Above:
- National Enquirer
- 4 Chan
- WSJ (Reporters are more to the left, but do some good work on biz stuff).
- WikiLeaks

Fox and Limbaugh, investigation is not their focus, I see them as more commenting than investigative. And Fox is more in the middle politically, but when compared to how left the MSM is, it makes Fox look conservative.

Amadeus 48 said...

"Begelman would never have jerked off into a potted plant unless it was a paid potted plant and a damn fine looking potted plant at that."

Brilliant. And hilarious.

rcocean said...

From reading the recent comments all I can say is "Poor Harvey Weinstein".

Imagine, all the women lying about you. All those women for 17 years (or was it 20?) that you helped out by submitting to their sexual advances. And now, they're forming a lynch mob! Even sadder, is all you wanted to do was help people. You're a people person. And this is the thanks you get!

Sads. What's America coming to when a wealthy Film exec can't rape and sexually assault a couple actresses! Its not like they were innocent lambs, those vixens.

I thought after the Oscar for Roman Polanski puritanical America had changed. But I see its Blue Nose Amerika has claimed another Artistic Giant - Harvey Weinstein.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Harvey Weinstein/Roman Polanski Connection;

From Wiki:

"In September 2009, Weinstein publicly voiced opposition to efforts to extradite Roman Polanski from Switzerland to the U.S. regarding a 1977 charge that he had drugged and raped a 13-year-old, to which Polanski had pleaded guilty before fleeing the country.[23] Weinstein, whose company had distributed a film about the Polanski case, questioned whether Polanski committed any crime,[24] prompting Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley to insist that Polanski's guilty plea indicated that his action was a crime, and that several other serious charges were pending.[25]"

Lotta Hollywood types coddled Roman Polanski too..,,,,,,

rcocean said...

Its sad that an Artistic Giant like Weinstein who gave us such films as:

- Hour of the Pig
- Crossing the Line
- True Romance
- Flirting with Disaster
- Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
- Down to You
- Sin City
- I Don't Know How She Does It

Should be brought low by a lynch mob of money mad females.

TrespassersW said...

Whisky Tango Foxtrot, Chuck? Why is it that you try to make every damn comment section about Trump?

Full stop.

Bay Area Guy said...

@rcocean,

Good list, but you forgot The Crying Game, a sweet, innocent love story about a brooding IRA agent who falls for an attractive, biracial gal, who drops trou to surprise us with her rather large male member.

That was Harvey too!

He is full of surprises.

Matt said...

Listening to that audio was disturbing and nauseating.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"But of course I think we both understand that the David Remnick-edited New Yorker is an organ of the DNC."

Chuck, you're an organ of the DNC.

tim in vermont said...

The Crying Game was a good movie, sort of touching.

Ken B said...

Clinton did not condemn Weinstein. Read carefully, it's a non-condemnatory condemnation, of a kind of behavior.

rcocean said...

"who drops trou to surprise us with her rather large male member."

Yeah, wasn't that scene in a fern bar?

More evidence of the Harvey Weinstein touch.

Big Mike said...

@Ken, so Hillary is trying to hedge her bets even now? Keep in mind that she doesn't seem to think that rape is much of a crime, (cf., the twelve year old girl raped by Clinton's client, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and now Harvey Weinstein's victims).

rcocean said...

Bill's keeping quiet. Just like Ted Kennedy kept quiet during the Clarence Thomas hearing.

Maybe, he'll bite his lip later and tell us he never had sex with Harvey Weinstein.

sy1492 said...

Harvey, you are doing it wrong. Just grab them by the pussy! I kid!!

nbks said...

I remain stunned at just how cheap the Weinstein payoffs were. $10,000 for a high profile DA to spike a case, $100,000 to rape a famous starlet. I guess millionaire leftists can get it wholesale

Fabi said...

Does Harvey not know the most effective pickup line of all?

"Nice shoes! Wanna fuck?"

Quaestor said...

"Chuck, you're an organ of the DNC."

I Was a Dick for the DNC

readering said...

Interesting take by Tina Brown, who once ran a publishing company with Weinstein:

https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/10/10/what-harvey-and-trump-have-in-common/

AllenS said...

I read the article, and all of the comments, and I could not stop thinking about what BJ Clinton is thinking about all of this now, wondering, wondering if he's next to be accused by multiples of women for doing the same exact thing. Thinking, what women, or men for that matter will come to his defense today.

Who's Bob Corker?

Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary should, at least, console Harvey's wife, Georgina Chapman.

Sistahs gotta stick together.

Georgina is 25 years younger than Harvey, so maybe she cannot relate to what Hillary went through.

She also has 2 young kids with Harvey. Money, fame and power can be quite alluring. Fat, 65-year old men (like my Uncle Fred) aren't normally getting hot babes.

Alas, getting one hot babe, was not nearly enough for Harvey. He wanted 2, then 4, then 8, then so on, and so on and so on. The potted plant was merely a sin of opportunity, not of design.

Georgina has been very quiet. Hillary was very quiet. They didn't know. Really. They. just. didn't. know.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Freeman,
It's very understandable why aspiring actresses would be fearful of saying something. Which is all the more reason why established actresses who were aware of the problem NEEDED to get involved. The fact that they didn't is incredibly damning to them as individuals, to the industry as a whole, and to the left politically.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Hillary is probably afraid of what Weinstein could do to her and Bill if she under-buses him.

Ralph L said...

Bob Corker is R senator from TN who enabled Obama's horrible Iran deal, somehow avoiding Senate supermajority approval for a treaty.

Drago said...

I see reading, the lefty, is picking up where Chuck, the lifelong republican (wink wink), left off.

What incredible "bad luck" for Chuck!

Yep, mustn't avert our gaze from Trump for even a moment.

The Journolist directive has been issued.

Birches said...

Harvey, you are doing it wrong. Just grab them by the pussy! I kid!!

I'm not going to pretend there aren't similarities btw what Trump has been accused of and Harvey. But there is a glaring difference. Trump takes no for an answer after he grabs. Weinstein doesn't.

Ralph L said...

Birches, has anyone said her pussy was unwilling grabbed by Trump?
His quote, like shooting on 5th ave, was that a star could, because he was a star.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

Genghis Khan didn't have to be charming. I doubt he worried about his partner's pleasure.

Temujin (Genghis Khan) adored his wife, Börte. Theirs was an arranged marriage at age 16 that quickly became a love match. They genuinely liked each other: they were best friends as well as loving spouses. When Börte was kidnapped by the Merkits, a rival clan (Genghis was a Brojigin) he waged war against her captors to regain her. Shortly after he rescued her she gave birth to a son, Jochi, and it is almost certain that he was the child of one of the Merkit chieftains who had raped her. Genghis nevertheless adopted the boy and raised him, lovingly, as his own. In time he elevated Börte to the rank of empress and had three more sons and as many as six daughters by her.

Börte was a highly intelligent, strong-willed woman. When Genghis was off on campaign he entrusted the Mongol kingdom to Börte, and she proved a wise and able administrator. With Börte ruling during his many lengthy absences, Genghis knew he never had to worry about internal dissent while he was gone. He depended on her and regarded her as his equal; indeed, he once remarked that in all the world he was only afraid of provoking the displeasure of two people, his mother Hoelun and his wife Börte.

Birches said...

Ralph, there's like 14 women who say Trump has either grabbed them or kissed them without consent. Some of it seems silly (he kissed me on the lips the first time I met him). Some more substantial.

Roughcoat said...

So Harvey Weinstein was worse, in his treatment of and attitude toward women, than Genghis Khan.

Krumhorn said...

Further in support of Freeman Hunt's dialogue from Heather Graham:

The question — and this is not an excuse — is wha defines sexual harassment in the workplace? He didn’t explicitly offer a trade — sex for work — even though I knew that was what he was implying. And I hadn’t gone to his hotel. I know this is an inner dialogue many women have — it’s part of what’s holding so many of us back from sharing our stories. We don’t want to be attacked for reading into something that may or may not have been there. We don’t want to be looked at as weak for not being able to handle ourselves in a business run by men. We don’t want to lose work by being defined as a Difficult Woman. We don’t want to be the first or only voice in the room.

- Krumhorn

Roughcoat said...

The question — and this is not an excuse — is wha defines sexual harassment in the workplace?

Masturbating into a potted plant, for starters.

Mark Daniels said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark Daniels said...

"I haven't seen Drudge put up his siren in a long time."

I used to conflate sirens, the instruments that make noise on emergency vehicles, and the red lights atop such vehicles when I was a kid. It's a common association to make, but they're not the same things, of course.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Chuck, you're an organ of the DNC."

I Was a Dick for the DNC


More like a hemorrhoid

walter said...

Asia Argento: "Where is the fucking party?"
Weinstein: "I like the way you think."

Anonymous said...

" This is the sort of expose' that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never attempt, much less run, if it involved Trump. They would be actively undermining the sources and their stories."

You mean the way the NY Times killed it in 2004?

Odd that Ronan Farrow began working on the story "ten months ago"...that is, right after Trump won the election?

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Blogger Ralph L said...
Birches, has anyone said her pussy was unwilling grabbed by Trump?
His quote, like shooting on 5th ave, was that a star could, because he was a star.

10/10/17, 5:37 PM"

"Blogger Birches said...
Ralph, there's like 14 women who say Trump has either grabbed them or kissed them without consent. Some of it seems silly (he kissed me on the lips the first time I met him). Some more substantial.

10/10/17, 6:33 PM"

Not really a quality response, "Birches." It doesn't even claim that Trump grabbed any specific woman's pussy. But it implies that he did. Like maybe.

Dr Okojie said...

After 9 years in marriage with my hubby with 3 kids, my husband started going out with other ladies and showed me cold love, on several occasions he threatened to divorce me if I dare question him about his affair with other ladies, I was totally devastated and confused until an old friend of mine told me about a spell caster on the internet called DR. Okojie who help people with their relationship and marriage problem by the powers of love spells, at first I doubted if such thing ever exists but decided to give it a try, when I contacted him, he helped me cast a love spell on my husband and within 24hours my husband came back to me and started apologizing, now he has stopped going out with ladies and he is with me for good and for real. Contact this great spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem and all kinds of problem you find difficult to resolve and he will put a lasting solution to it. You can also contact him if you are unable to bear children. Here is his email drokojiespellhome6@gmail.com

Robert Cook said...

I'm curious when it will break big about the pedophile Hollywood producers who groom young boy actors to pass around among them. Corey Feldman has spoken (circumspectly) of his own experiences and about his friend and fellow actor Corey Haim, (who died at 38 from a drug overdose). Feldman won't name names, for reasons of legal liability.

J. Farmer said...

@Robert Cook:

I'm curious when it will break big about the pedophile Hollywood producers who groom young boy actors to pass around among them.

Those stories have been around for quite a long time. It always astounds me the degree to which a culture of silence grows up around those kinds of cases. Although, to be a bit pedantic for a moment, and to help illustrate the problem, the issue is not so much pedohilia, per se, which is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It is of a less familiar term called ephebophilia, which is adult to adolescents, not children in the biological sense.

That said, sexual exploitation of minors in the entertainment industry is endemic and broadly ignored by the major media outlets. The director Brian Singer has been accused on multiple occasions. The 2014 documentary An Open Secret is the best treatment of the subject I have seen to date. Milo in his now infamous interview with Joe Rogan makes references to Hollywood gay parties in which underage males are exploited

Bad Lieutenant said...

Although, to be a bit pedantic for a moment,


YOU, being pedantic?

and to help illustrate the problem, the issue is not so much pedohilia, per se, which is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It is of a less familiar term called ephebophilia, which is adult to adolescents, not children in the biological sense.

For the Nth time, no one cares about this terribly important distinction. You want to take the onus off socialism; you say What is socialism? Isn't everyone socialist now? You want to take the onus off child molesters; you say he wasn't a child, he was a teenager. Doesn't seem like you object much to either.

If there were two of you saying this and I shot the other one, would you shut up, or would you insist upon lecturing us on your distinctions without differences till you got yours? Hey, I didn't kill you, the bullet killed you.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

For the Nth time, no one cares about this terribly important distinction...You want to take the onus off child molesters; you say he wasn't a child, he was a teenager. Doesn't seem like you object much to either.

Well, for one, the law cares a great deal, which is why there are significantly different punishments for statutory rape versus assaultive rape and even more so on sexual battery of a child. Perhaps you don't think there is a difference between sexual activity with a 6-year-old versus a 16-year-old. I think there is a huge difference.

As for your claim that it does not seem like I "object much to either," why didn't you quote the first sentence of my second paragraph: "That said, sexual exploitation of minors in the entertainment industry is endemic and broadly ignored by the major media outlets." Unless you think I am pro-exploitation, not sure how you can conclude that I don't object to it. Especially considering I positively referenced a documentary that treats the subject very seriously.

p.s. If you want to carry on the socialist discussion, do so on the thread in which it was brought up. I'm more than happy, too, since it seems you have completely misconstrued my position.

Robert Cook said...

"The 2014 documentary An Open Secret is the best treatment of the subject I have seen to date."

J. Farmer, I saw that. It was very good. And yes, I agree there is a fine distinction between adult sexual attraction toward and abuse of adolescents and that of adult abuse of prepubescent children. However, it is a fine distinction, and the resulting sexual acts in either case are abusive and coercive, where they are not outright rape. According to Feldman, his friend and colleague Corey Haim was raped at age 11 by a producer in Hollywood.

Unlike others who seem unable to grasp fine distinctions (and who think those who can are "pedantic"), I understand you have no intent to "take the onus off child molesters."

Bad Lieutenant said...

As for your claim that it does not seem like I "object much to either," why didn't you quote the first sentence of my second paragraph: "That said, sexual exploitation of minors in the entertainment industry is endemic and broadly ignored by the major media outlets." Unless you think I am pro-exploitation, not sure how you can conclude that I don't object to it. Especially considering I positively referenced a documentary that treats the subject very seriously.



I guess I must think you're pro-exploitation. NTTAWWT.

Catch-22 Hypocrisy Quotes
[Chief White Halfoat:] "Racial prejudice is a terrible thing, Yossarian. It really is. It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop, or spic.


It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal ephebophile like a pedophile, hebephile, nepiophile or chickenhawk.

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

Simple question. Do you think that a 25-year-old man who has vaginal intercourse with a 16-year-old girl is the same thing as having vaginal intercourse with a 6-year-old? If so, there is not a legal jurisdiction in this country that agrees with you. Also, if you were to see a 16-year-old girl nude and you got sexually aroused by that, would that be equivalent to seeing a 6-year-old nude and becoming sexually aroused? I certainly don't think so, but you seem to think, "Hey, they're both minors, so it's equally bad." Similarly, homicide and manslaughter both involve taking a human life, but are treated as different crimes. Why?

Robert Cook said...

Certain states still allow girls as young as 16 years old to marry.

Bad Lieutenant said...

16? I had thought Delaware went down to 14 for marriage. Age of consent was 12 in Victorian England, IIRC. I'm chiefly concerned with denying homosexuals access to boys, which I firmly believe is the aim of all this hairsplitting.

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

I'm chiefly concerned with denying homosexuals access to boys, which I firmly believe is the aim of all this hairsplitting.

Laughable response, as usual. And of course, even if that were completely true, it would make no difference to the argument. There actually is a pro-pedophilia organization in existence; it's called NAMBLA, and it advocates the complete abolition of age of consent laws. Anyone here advocating that? What people are advocating is that there is a fundamental difference between sexual attraction to pre-pubescents versus post-pubescents. And you agree with that. Or at least, you have provided exactly zero argument against it. The point is that there are clearly children incapable of rendering consent, adults capable of rendering consent, and a foggy middle. Because of the necessity of legalism, an artificial line has to be drawn. But there is also an important difference between that which is illegal and that which is immoral. A 16-year-old and a 21-year-old engaging in a mutually agreed upon and mutually wanted sexual experience may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but I would argue that a 21-year-old who lies, manipulates, and cajoles an 18-year-old into sex is more immoral than the previous example.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 313 of 313   Newer› Newest»