October 11, 2017

Who are the women who accepted the deal as offered by Harvey Weinstein? Will their names be kept out of the press? Should they?

I'm listening to the NYT podcast, "The Daily," and today's subject is "Harvey Weinstein’s New Accusers."

The NYT reporter Jodi Kantor described listening to the stories told by Weinstein's accusers:
It's like watching the same movie again and again and again. It appears to have been a system. It was facilitated by so many people. Executives. Very low-level assistants who had to do some of the dirty work. There were a lot of logistics involved. In every case that we documented, according to the women, Weinstein asked to meet with them for a work reason. And in some of the stories we've heard, what the women describe is a very explicit work-for-sex quid pro quo. Other women say that just as Weinstein put the moves on, he essentially name-dropped. He said, Look at what I've done for this one. Or that one. He implied: If you want to succeed in this business, this is what you have to do. If you get intimate with me, I'll be able to make a big star like such-and-such.
Who is such-and-such? Will such-and-such's name be withheld? Obviously, Weinstein could have lied. He could have named the biggest star without it being true that the woman did what he said was a necessary step for a young, beautiful woman to get a role in one of his movies. Indeed, the intimacy test could have worked the other way: If you're pliable enough to give your beautiful body to a horrible man like me, you don't have what it takes.

The very next topic in the podcast is Gwyneth Paltrow, who was Weinstein's biggest female star at that time. We're told she rejected Weinstein's offer.

In quid pro quo, you get what you bargained for, but what if you give and don't get? You can't sue to force Harvey Weinstein to make you a star. Some women who've made accusations got monetary settlements, but these women had to give even more (in the form of nondisclosure agreements). And they seem to have rejected the sex or had it forced on them.

Did anyone accept the arrangement, give the sex willingly, and expect Weinstein to fulfill his end of the bargain? We haven't heard the name of anyone in that position. I assume there are lots of names in this category. Notice that we don't know what they got. Did anyone enter the bargain with eyes-open, deciding it's worth it, and get what she was led to expect?

Weinstein's modus operandi wouldn't work if the open secret included the knowledge that the women who said yes got little or nothing. If Weinstein were lying, using names of women who didn't in fact take the offer, then he was slandering the women he named. Those stars — such as, perhaps, Paltrow — could have brought lawsuits, but there's little reason to believe that the potential for a defamation lawsuit would have stopped a man who was committing so many legal wrongs and getting away with it for 20+ years.

So much silence facilitating so much harm! Should the women who took the bargain and got what they wanted out of it be regarded as victims and entitled to keep their names secret, or are they part of a system that hurt many others, and subject to outing?

190 comments:

Oso Negro said...

Lindsey Lohan!

Rumpletweezer said...

The take-away from all this is that these guys (Weinstein, O'Reilly, Weiner, Edwards, Spitzer) should have married somebody like Hillary.

Oso Negro said...

System!

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

What kind of deal did he make with Hillary ? Do so-and-so and I'll make you President ? So she so-and-soed, but he failed to hold up his end of the deal. Just spitballing.

AllenS said...

Never underestimate the power of knowing where the bodies are buried.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Did anyone enter the bargain with eyes-open, deciding it's worth it, and get what she was led to expect?"

The rhhardin Postulate.

I am Laslo.

Krumhorn said...

Gwennie and Meryl and Cate and Nicole and Heather have no reason to disclose that they let him do them. It would undermine the legitimacy of their careers. Lohan, on the other hand, has no problem defending him since nobody else is willing to hire her.

One thing is all but certain. His crass, ham-fisted approached worked far more often than it didn't. Which is more than can be said about my elegant, refined, and witty style.

- Krumhorn

Unknown said...

If they talked to the press ( who are probably lying their ass off, since they do it all of the time ) then the press should not reveal them if they do not want it revealed.

But if they do not come public, it didn't happen, that is just the way it has to work. And if charges are not pressed, Weinstein should not be prosecuted. Fired and ostracized maybe, but if you want him punished you have to step up, file charges and get evidence collected.

From what I am seeing right now, little prosecutions should be forthcoming.

cremes said...

Eric S Raymond (esr to his friends) comes at this issue from a similar, though distinct, angle. I think his post from yesterday is worth injecting into this discussion.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7701

Hari said...

Maybe this will end up like baseball and the actresses who took the deal will have asterisks in the record books next to their names.

Ralph L said...

His crass, ham-fisted approach

I think this was the important part of the process for him. Explains why pros weren't enough. Humiliation and power trip were the turn ons.

javabeast said...

NDA for a settlement involving sexual assault or an explicit work-for-sex quid pro quo? I didn't think that was how those things worked.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"It appears to have been a system. It was facilitated by so many people. Executives. Very low-level assistants who had to do some of the dirty work." ... and even famous actors themselves - like Matt Damon and Russel Crowe.

fify

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Tommin' is the path of least resistance and the best short-term return. But you only get to sell your soul once, as African-Americans have found to their misfortune. White chicks are comfortable sucking up and pandering because it's supposed to be part of their toolbox anyway, even if they're what passes for a feminist these days. So yeah, there's probably a lot of women in Hollywood who have no regrets and feel no animosity towards HW.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

We assume it's only women. Did Matt Damon and Ben Affleck provide some oral services for their big breaks? I'm do not know. I have no idea. But certainly if Weinstein liked sex and domination, why exclude men?

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Not many progressives have even basic arithmetic skills so congrats!

Krumhorn said...

Of course, we know that it helps if you look like MIla Kunis. It's clear that Harvey could rub up chubby if you looked like Mila.

While it's not clear if she was speaking about him, last year she said, "I taught myself that to succeed as a woman in this industry I had to play by the rules of the boy's club. But the older I got and the longer I worked in this industry, the more I realized that it's bullshit! And, worse, that I was complicit in allowing it to happen."

- Krumhorn

Sebastian said...

"So much silence facilitating so much harm!" How much?

Sure, HW's sexist preference for women put aspiring male actors at a serious disadvantage.

Sure, HW imposed on at least some women. I yield to no one in regarding him as a sleazy creep--but I thought that well before the "revelations."

But the details matter. What did he do, to whom, on what terms?

Like esr in the link cited above, I assume women have agency. Many women involved claim they exercised it. That mitigates the "harm."

Ralph L said...

Has anyone linked this here yet?
Laughing at HW at Oscar nominations

CJinPA said...

Provocative (if that's the right word) questions in this post. Glad your name's not Andy.
I don't think we'll get the names of those who took the bargain and succeeded, or took it and were duped. But they are surely out there. The thought of selling your dignity is hard enough, but to sell it for nothing. Damn.

EDH said...

"Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you..."

"Everyone would lie for me - everyone who counts."

Laslo Spatula said...

No actress is going to admit to eating Harvey's asshole.

And that is how Harvey wins.

I am Laslo.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"So much silence facilitating so much harm! Should the women who took the bargain and got what they wanted out of it be regarded as victims and entitled to keep their names secret, or are they part of a system that hurt many others, and subject to outing? "

Will we ever find out?
The left and their DNC hack press will find a way to make this all disappear. I'd like to know why someone accused of rape isn't being prosecuted? We were told during the last election that victims are to be believed. On campus, rape allegations = Kangaroo Kourt and no due process.

Harvey(D) gets rehab.

Curious George said...

The one thing that is obvious is that HW is done. The left isn't pissed that he assaulted women, they're pissed that their names are being dragged into it. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon don't care that he raped women, they are that people are calling them out for the hypocrites they are.

whitney said...

The casting couch meme has endured for decades because it is based in the truth. Corey Feldman try to expose what they did to Child Actors and it was just brushed under the carpet. This is the beginning. Every single person in Hollywood at some point has been degraded buy a person more powerful than them to get where they are. The desire for wealth and fame is very powerful. What would you do for it?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Who is such-and-such? Will such-and-such's name be withheld?"

-- If we accept that this is sexual assault, probably not, as they would be considered victims, whether or not they accepted it. So, the media could (and maybe should, I'm not using a lot of brain power on this at the moment), protect their names the same way they would protect anyone else.

But, just like the large numbers of women who worked for Joss Whedon, almost every one of Miramax's stars will be assumed to have dealt with it one way or the other. Which is a shame, since we'll never really know.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

RALPH L - good find!

exiledonmainstreet said...

I like how Affleck (or was it Pitt?) said he told HW to "knock it off." "Knock it off" is what you say to someone who is doing something mildly irritating or uncouth. My mom said "knock it off" when I squirmed in church or my kid brother chewed with his mouth open.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Will Harvey hire Gloria Allred? He should. She's perfect for him.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"Fired and ostracized maybe, but if you want him punished you have to step up, file charges and get evidence collected."

-- I'd say being fired and ostracized ARE punishments. If we don't believe the accusations, then he shouldn't be either of those.

Michael K said...

Why did Brad Pitt attack Weinstein publickly ?

Did he know Gwenith did the deed for the awful movie "Shakespeare in Love?"

"Once written" is worried about when the Bill Clinton stories start to trickle out.

traditionalguy said...

Harvey's odyssey brings to mind the lust hounds still running another huge world wide show production studio that has long used a system to seduce sexual slaves with the willing help from a staff who keep it secret and official cover ups when necessary using muscle and threats at the highest political level. In fact Harvey just proposed using the same pretense of going into therapy for forgiveness that worked so well so many times for Catholic priests.

tcrosse said...

Maybe Harvey got off having his asshole eaten by a presumptive future POTUS.

I am not Laslo. Not even close.

Bob Boyd said...

"We're told [Gwyneth Paltrow] rejected Weinstein's offer."

Just the thought of it will have her steaming furiously.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

22. And not one post on Trump's yuge! victory over the NFL. In 6 months, Anne, you'll be embarrassed how you never gave Trump credit for the good things he did.

CJinPA said...

From a comment in Variety on Kate Winslet's denouncing of Weinstein:

"As a woman, I feel empowered to talk about the OTHER elephant in the room:
All the women who DID react favorably to Harvey Weinstein’s advances. Some women refused, we’ll hear a lot about them. Some women were overpowered, threatened, groomed, or simply overwhelmed into permitting or being subjected to sexual contact.
But there’s another group. We all know it. There were the women who gleefully used their sexuality to advance their careers. They degraded themselves with full knowledge of the quid pro quo — they were trading sex for opportunities and the advancement of their careers.
I’m in that first group. Although not in Hollywood, I’m in an industry where, yes, there are men of power who expect women to pay tribute with their bodies for opportunities. I have missed chances because I have not played the game. Other women have played along, often gleefully. They are empowered by leading a powerful man around by his dingus. They see it as strength, but it hurts us all.
You know why Harvey Weinstein felt so empowered to behave this way with so many women who entered his orbit? Because some large, non-trivial, percentage of women were totally down with that. Its wrong, it sends terrible signals, and its not really empowering. It just encourages boorish assholes to think they are entitled to it. Its bad for women and shame on them all!..."

Daniel Richwine said...

Methinks he's not an exception given how easily he assumed he would get away with it. If any other industry worked like Hollywood it would be destroyed. I am convinced the continuous negative portrayals of the business world in movies and TV is due to the fact most of the writers only have health with the Hollywood work environment. I certainly never encountered anything remotely like the poor environments I see portrayed.

mccullough said...

Brad Pitt is the only one who stood up to this asshole that we know about. Good for Pitt. The rest are spineless.

Sally327 said...

If you're a big star now, or even just a successful actress but not necessarily a marquee name, and you're somebody who went along with HW, I don't think you'd find any benefit to telling anyone that now. And why should someone allow her success to be attributed solely to that one thing, which is what everyone will say, when it wouldn't have been that one thing, it would have been other factors as well, talent, other people giving you opportunities, hard work, luck, etc.

And if you're an actress who slept with HW but never made it big, that failure would presumably be the result of lots of factors and not because he didn't deliver for you, which it doesn't sound like he ever made exact promises for specific roles or anything, it seems like more do this and I'll be your friend, don't and you'll never work in this town again.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillarywood is a cesspit of sexual deviancy and leftwing politics. The 2 go hand in hand.

Seeing Red said...

HOllyweird lives outing and shaming. Out them.

iqvoice said...

I'm surprised that there are 40+ comments and the word "prostitute" hasn't been used yet. Those women who sold their bodies for Hollywood success are imho not victims, but they are prostitutes and Harvey was their pimp & john at the same time.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, if there are this huge population of women WILLING to do quid pro quos, why are all these big stars who didn't the big stars, and not the ones who did?

Seeing Red said...

Because Sally, they didn’t build that.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"And if you're an actress who slept with HW but never made it big, that failure would presumably be the result of lots of factors and not because he didn't deliver for you, which it doesn't sound like he ever made exact promises for specific roles or anything, it seems like more do this and I'll be your friend, don't and you'll never work in this town again"

The ones most motivated to talk are those who were getting good roles, turned him down and then found that work was no longer coming their way.

David Docetad said...

Daniel Richwine said:

"I am convinced the continuous negative portrayals of the business world in movies and TV is due to the fact most of the writers only have dealt with the Hollywood work environment."

Exactly right.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Did anyone enter the bargain with eyes-open, deciding it's worth it, and get what she was led to expect?"

Of course, yes they did. Others entered the bargain and didn't get what they expected to get. They made a bad bargain.

People do this---> enter into bargains and trades all the time. Example: I'll babysit your kid if you babysit mine. I'll trade you money for your used car. Sometimes the trades are with money, real estate and other assets. In this case the assets of the wannabe starlets are their asses and their bodies.

Curious George said...

"mccullough said...
Brad Pitt is the only one who stood up to this asshole that we know about. Good for Pitt. The rest are spineless."

No, you don't know this as fact. That simply is a claim by an unnamed source. I mean AFAIK Pitt hasn't even claimed that. Nor has Paltrow.

Matthew Sablan said...

Rose McGowan claims Ben Affleck told Weinstein to "stop doing that," but Affleck says he never knew. So, matters who you believe. Did Affleck ineffectually whine for Weinstein to "stop doing that" to women, or did he not know?

Either way, not a good look.

Kevin said...

I thought Bob Boyd won the thread.

But then Bill, Republic of Texas chimed in.

Kevin said...

Every actor and actress in Hollywood should be asked on the record what they knew and what their experiences with Harvey were.

And then we'll see if the stories match up.

Kevin said...

Maybe this will end up like baseball and the actresses who took the deal will have asterisks in the record books next to their names.

The asterisk works in baseball because everyone with one did the same thing. We can do better than that. We can have different symbols to let the reader know what happened.

I'm just hoping there aren't enough incidents that one of the symbols is a potted plant.

David said...

"Did anyone accept the arrangement, give the sex willingly, and expect Weinstein to fulfill his end of the bargain? We haven't heard the name of anyone in that position. I assume there are lots of names in this category. Notice that we don't know what they got. Did anyone enter the bargain with eyes-open, deciding it's worth it, and get what she was led to expect?"

Oh, dear. Are we allowed to talk about this?

Yancey Ward said...

I think those who took the deal, or tried to, out themselves or it shouldn't be done at all. I expect you won't see any out themselves, however.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Nice find, CJinPA. That's very well-put.

MikeR said...

I don't mean these women ill, but is there any reason to accept their word that they said No? Except the ones that were raped.
They are actresses; I imagine they are good at pretending. And why would should they admit it?
But their careers were on the line, and they did remain silent for decades afterwards.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I don't mean these women ill, but is there any reason to accept their word that they said No?"

-- Because if we assume they're lying about saying 'no,' why assume they're telling the truth about being propositioned?

The Drill SGT said...

Reminds me of that story attributed to various Brits: Beaverbrook, Churchill, Shaw among others:

A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:

She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

Matthew Sablan said...

My favorite woman put down by famous politician is the woman who tells Coolidge: "I bet my husband I could get more than three words out of you."

Silent Cal's response: "You lose."

Matthew Sablan said...

[I don't know why those set ups always involve a woman asking a question to be put down by the politician. I wonder if there are any good "man asks Thatcher stupid question" urban legends.]

Saint Croix said...

Harvey was an Oscar joke in 2013.

Ambrose said...

I expect we are about to learn that Hollywood actresses are not averse to exchanging favors for good roles - but are very averse to other actresses doing the same to their detriment.

Sebastian said...

"He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."

Of course, it is assumed that we know the kind of man who would initiate the bargain.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Does asking the question make Althouse one of Harvey's enforcers?

I think it does, because "give the sex willingly" is not supported by the facts in evidence about Harvey's seduction technique.

CJinPA said...

"Does asking the question make Althouse...."


Asking questions is what grown ups do.

Rick said...

I expect we are about to learn that Hollywood actresses are not averse to exchanging favors for good roles - but are very averse to other actresses doing the same to their detriment.

Now we're getting to the heart of the feminist betrayal with Lewinsky. There's a problem with sex in the workplace beyond coercion. If women voluntarily engage in sex and find their careers advanced as a result women who avoid this path (or those for whom it is not available because of looks etc) are disadvantaged as there are only a certain number of promotions available. Men are also disadvantaged but as a society we're fine penalizing other men for Weinstein's actions by refusing to consider the impact on them. We see this benefit with Bill Clinton's trying to find Lewinsky a government job as his terms were ending. Do you suppose he took that personal interest in every intern?

Why should we know who these successful abusers of the process are? Not only did they unfairly benefit themselves but they also stabilized the system which abused some women and penalized many more.

In the bit of curious timing Lewinsky is portraying herself as an online bullying victim which the media and left seem to support. They're still in thrall to their bias.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brad Pitt ain't yo' ma and he ain't yo' pa. Certainly ain't Weinstein's. What, was BP supposed to follow HW around to make sure he never oppresses anyone again? Should he have cut off a finger? Horse's head in the bed? What would you have Pitt do, exactly?

Michael K said...

But there’s another group. We all know it. There were the women who gleefully used their sexuality to advance their careers.

It's like Affirmative Action. Every woman who starred in one of his movies is assumed to have provided the necessary blowjob.

Bob Boyd said...

What if you were a young actress trying to make it in Hollywood and your agent had finally gotten you a "dinner date" with Harvey. You knew what that meant. You agonized, but came to the conclusion that you want it. You want to get that big break and you know you can act and you believe, if given the shot, you will make it. You will be rich and famous. You said to yourself, To hell with it! I'm doing it, whatever it is, no matter how disgusting Weinstein might be.
So you're psyched up and the big night is tonight and then you read in the paper that Weinstein is busted.
Now you know what kind of person you are and you have to go back to waiting tables. Shit.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Will their names be kept out of the press? Should they?"

It might be fairer to expose the HW actress-victim (arguendo) set, IFF you also expose the other predators, and their victims. All those who traded bodies for parts, with OTHER Hollywood bigwigs, can now laugh and laugh at the HW circle...until/unless they are caught.

HW seems to me to have really good odds of dying soon. Sooner than 4 years. He is an Inconvenient Truth if there ever was one.,



Really though, let Hollywood be animals, like we should let the NFL be animals. Just take off the masks. Who did HW advance, that was worse on the merits, say, than Sofia Coppola in Godfather III?

Matthew Sablan said...

"What would you have Pitt do, exactly?"

-- Go to the press, like he'd have done if it was Republican he could tear down.

The point isn't that we expect Pitt to actually do anything. The point is to point out he didn't. It is to show that Hollywood is more of an old boy's club with a rape culture than any other institution, and they moralize to us. The point is to rub their nose in it until they realize they're not our moral betters.

Birkel said...

If people ask questions, Left Bank worries, the power of Hollywood and the MSM might deteriorate.

And that would hurt The Party.

Can't. Have. That.

Bad Lieutenant said...

What if you were a young actress trying to make it in Hollywood and your agent had finally gotten you a "dinner date" with Harvey. You knew what that meant. You agonized, but came to the conclusion that you want it. You want to get that big break and you know you can act and you believe, if given the shot, you will make it. You will be rich and famous. You said to yourself, To hell with it! I'm doing it, whatever it is, no matter how disgusting Weinstein might be.
So you're psyched up and the big night is tonight and then you read in the paper that Weinstein is busted.
Now you know what kind of person you are and you have to go back to waiting tables. Shit.



Bob, have you ever met a woman? If so, you should know their generic capacity for rationalization. She will tell herself whatever she needs to feel good.

Original Mike said...

"It's like Affirmative Action. Every woman who starred in one of his movies is assumed to have provided the necessary blowjob."

Heh.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"What would you have Pitt do, exactly?"

-- Go to the press, like he'd have done if it was Republican he could tear down.


So he had evidence and all the needed resources to see him through slander, libel, blacklisting, did he? Tapes maybe?

Oh, he had Angelina Jolie's word. Why didn't Jolie go to the press then? Cause she's a girl?

Rick said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Also, if there are this huge population of women WILLING to do quid pro quos, why are all these big stars who didn't the big stars, and not the ones who did?


This rests on an unproven assumption: that the big stars didn't participate.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"It's like Affirmative Action. Every woman who starred in one of his movies is assumed to have provided the necessary blowjob."

No doubt. Safe enough assumption. If you don't like it, don't go to Hollywood. Merit, yeah, cool story sis.

A hundred years ago, Harry Houdini could not catch on in Hollywood, because he simply could not bring himself to kiss any woman apart from his wife.

Plus ca change...

FullMoon said...

Waiting for Harv to come out of rehab, and name all the actresses who tried to seduce him in order to get a role. A gentleman can only take so much abuse.

Curious George said...

"Hari said...
Maybe this will end up like baseball and the actresses who took the deal will have asterisks in the record books next to their names."

The only use in baseballs record books was Roger Maris' 61 home runs. And that came about because the season was lengthened from 156 games (when Ruth hit 60) to 162 games for Maris.

None of the PED users have had asterisks.

Bad Lieutenant said...

The point is to point out he didn't. It is to show that Hollywood is more of an old boy's club with a rape culture than any other institution, and they moralize to us. The point is to rub their nose in it until they realize they're not our moral betters.

Oh, in general, sure. Lots of industries and sectors are. Apparently even in the armed forces there are such cliques. What are you going to do, haul off all the bull dykes and cycle them in a pressure chamber till they pop?

Matthew Sablan said...

Bad Lieutenant: I think that's the point of the question. The entire Hollywood system is corrupt, and now we're just beating them with that fact because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bad Lieutenant said...

If women voluntarily engage in sex and find their careers advanced as a result women who avoid this path (or those for whom it is not available because of looks etc) are disadvantaged as there are only a certain number of promotions available.


Interesting...if you can afford to pick someone for a job, not on the merits, it's really not that important a job, is it? And/or, you're not a very good businessperson, and will soon lose the power that lets you do this exploitation, bargaining, or whatever. Or the system you're in is weak.

Seeing Red said...

How many times Did Taylor Swift meet Harvey? That guy should appeal he might be able to overturn the ruling.

sodal ye said...

Meryl Streep.

Matthew Sablan said...

As for why not cliques in other industries and sectors, I imagine, in part, it is because Hollywood is specifically arrogant about acting like our moral superiors on a majority of social issues, so the hypocrisy is particularly appealing to use to flip them the bird.

Seeing Red said...

Megan McArdle has an article up about CA’s sex offender registry.

Krumhorn said...

So you're psyched up and the big night is tonight and then you read in the paper that Weinstein is busted.
Now you know what kind of person you are and you have to go back to waiting tables. Shit.


Now THAT'S funny.

- Krumhorn

Bob Boyd said...

"Bob, have you ever met a woman? If so, you should know their generic capacity for rationalization. She will tell herself whatever she needs to feel good."

You sound bitter.

Freeman Hunt said...

Though it's good, it's not brave for people in the industry to denounce him now.

What would be brave would be for someone to come forward and say, "He said he would help my career if I slept with him, so I did, and this is the part he got for me."

Krumhorn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Ford said...

Pure speculation - perhaps Paltrow was able to reject Weinstein and still rise at Miramax because her father (a producer) and her mother (actress) were in the industry. Even more speculative - Paltrow was able to succeed because (connected as she was / credible), she had the goods on Harvey.

fivewheels said...

You know, they say you can't sleep your way to the top, you can only sleep your way to the middle. That's why the rumor mill always had people like Gretchen Mol at the top of the list of "Harvey's Girls." Hey, she had a career for a while. Sienna Miller didn't get quite that far.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
Bad Lieutenant: I think that's the point of the question. The entire Hollywood system is corrupt, and now we're just beating them with that fact because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Oh, then, go nuts. Any stick will do to beat a wicked dog.

But I can always turn off the set, you know. As it was said in the Godfather, They are animals, let them lose their souls.

The lecturing is annoying of course and mildly harmful, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather have the sex witch hunts in DC. I think that would probably improve our society even more. I bet the DC culture is far, far, far worse, the hunting even more fruitful. And the stakes are far higher.

Ann Althouse said...

"Although not in Hollywood, I’m in an industry where, yes, there are men of power who expect women to pay tribute with their bodies for opportunities. I have missed chances because I have not played the game. Other women have played along, often gleefully. They are empowered by leading a powerful man around by his dingus. They see it as strength, but it hurts us all."

Hillary.

wendybar said...

Highly doubt that is the end for the women who consented....read this...and figure out who they are talking about... http://blindgossip.com/?p=87584#more-87584

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Bob, have you ever met a woman? If so, you should know their generic capacity for rationalization. She will tell herself whatever she needs to feel good."

You sound bitter.

...

As Ann would say, that is a superficial criticism designed to control with shame, and I reject it.

Let's not be tiresome and allege that I believe this of every single woman, nor of no men. But as men are (TEND TO BE) taller and more adapted to killing spiders, women have (TEND TO HAVE) a greater affinity for saying, and believing, what they need to survive/win their day/life/transaction/relationship.

Ann Althouse said...

"Of course, yes they did. Others entered the bargain and didn't get what they expected to get. They made a bad bargain. People do this---> enter into bargains and trades all the time. Example: I'll babysit your kid if you babysit mine. I'll trade you money for your used car. Sometimes the trades are with money, real estate and other assets. In this case the assets of the wannabe starlets are their asses and their bodies."

A "bad bargain" is when you agree to give something that's much more valuable that what the other side agreed to give. That is not the same as what I was talking about in the quote that you are responding to, which was when the other side doesn't perform on its end of the deal. That is a breach of the bargain, which might have been a good bargain.

So if the bargain is: A few blowjobs given in exchange for a series of starring movie roles and promotion of one's career in the press and in the awards competitions, then a particular actress might decide that is a good bargain. But does she get what was promised? If not, that's a breach of the bargain. If that was the plan all along, then it was a fraud.

People resting on free market concepts need to step up their level of analysis.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Gosh, a lot of people would benefit if Harvey Weinstein were to wake up dead one morning soon.

lane ranger said...

What about the other men (and women?) in Hollywood who operated and operate in the same manner as Harvey? Surely we don't think he was a single outlier?

miklos000rosza said...

The thing is, there are a lot of pretty girls out there (and pretty boys). Many or most of the decisions being made whether to use one unknown or another are quite arbitrary, dependent on whim, or on whether you owe that person's agent a favor or not.

The agents know where the bodies are buried here.

Char Char Binks said...

Gwyneth didn't have to put out. Her mom probably already did that.

sodal ye said...

Meryl Streep claims she didn't know about HW's proclivities. She was in five Miramax movies from 1993 to 2008.

Sydney said...

It seems to me that what he did is more than sexual harassment. He is a serial rapist. What's more, his raping was facilitated by the people who worked for him. In legal world, does this put his company in jeopardy? I can't imagine that any other company- say a bank or a hospital or a bookstore - would get off without penalties if their modus operandi was to lure women in to see the boss for a job interview only so he could rape them.

rhhardin said...

So if the bargain is: A few blowjobs given in exchange for a series of starring movie roles and promotion of one's career in the press and in the awards competitions, then a particular actress might decide that is a good bargain. But does she get what was promised? If not, that's a breach of the bargain. If that was the plan all along, then it was a fraud.

People resting on free market concepts need to step up their level of analysis.


I agree it's fraud. No fraud, no force, is the rule for acceptable. The question is, as you say, whether it happened, in which case shame falls on the fraudster.

Courts don't enforce drug deals either, they just kill each other until deals are honored. Might work with Hollywood.

"Hollywood homocides rose this week as angry starlets descended on..."

Sydney said...

I know my previous comment was a little off topic, but re: actresses who consented - since learning hear of her Harvey tattoo, I suspect Judy Dench.

tcrosse said...

In 'Get Shorty' Elmore Leonard's hero finds that as a mob guy he has the perfect skill set for the movie business. Leonard knew a thing or two about Hollywood.

PB said...

Who are the women who happily serviced Harvey in their quest for career success? It's clearly a non-zero number of women. Women can be just as ruthlessly ambitious as men and willing to use sex to achieve that or merely to serve their own gratification

miklos000rosza said...

It's absurd to imagine Harvey Weinstein wouldn't give the starlets what he promised them. If he promised them anything solid.

Again, look at the agents. How many of the successful actresses HW helped have the same agent or agency?

Tiny Bunch said...

I'm confused. Are women fully empowered beings with free will and able to decide for themselves who to screw and for what reason? or are they delicate flowers that need protecting?

And the women who became famous and say they turned him down. Why should I believe them? Their job is to deceive.

CStanley said...

Yeah, brave would be people coming forward to talk about who else is still doing this.

And all of the big name actors and actresses....who HAD to have known this was going on....could have shut it down at any time if they had all refused to work with pigs like this. So you know, if you are Meryl Streep or George Clooney or Matt Damon or Ashley Judd, instead of going on awards shows and praising HW you quietly tell everyone in town that you won't work with him (or anyone else who operates this way.)

Everyone felt powerless to go up against him but in reality all of his power came from his ability to hire poeple whose names and images brought viewers to the theaters. One person alone boycotting him wouldn't have been able to bring him down, but I bet it would have only taken half a dozen or so of the top box office stars to do so.

Kevin said...

So if the bargain is: A few blowjobs given in exchange for a series of starring movie roles and promotion of one's career in the press and in the awards competitions, then a particular actress might decide that is a good bargain. But does she get what was promised? If not, that's a breach of the bargain. If that was the plan all along, then it was a fraud.

That's probably the kind of stuff Lisa Bloom was explaining to Harvey before she had to quit.

Darrell said...

"Argento recalled sitting on the bed after the incident, her clothes “in shambles,” her makeup smeared. She said that she told Weinstein, “I am not a whore,” and that he began laughing. He said he’d put the phrase on a T-shirt. "

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

Harvey is going to make a killing selling those t-shirts to all the actresses that say they got the job based on their talent and looks.

Kevin said...

Somewhere Lisa Bloom has a spreadsheet with all the names Harvey could remember, with what was promised and what was delivered.

Maybe North Korean hackers could find it?

MadisonMan said...

Should I care if someone slept with someone else to get ahead in the world? I don't think I do. I do think it would be interesting to hear, a la Freeman's suggestion, an actor saying "I did such-and-such for this person, with this promised, and nothing happened"

That kind of Sunshine makes it better to estimate whether what you are doing is actually worth the trouble.

STDs must run rampant through Hollywood.

traditionalguy said...

Focusing on the Professor's question about Bargain Enforcement shows the legal system is also Fixed by the Ruling Money Class that owns the Government whenever it says so. That is why Bannon and Trump had to have great courage when they exposed the corruption. And thanks to Jeff Sessions, Mueller's Army is breathing down their necks with Rigged Russian Collusion BS. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet.

But when the Law no longer cares to even attempt to do its job, you are left with Murder by teams of paid murderers, like Clinton, Inc does business.

Seeing Red said...

I thought Paltrow’s family was friends with Spielberg (or he’s her Godfather) and that’s how she got the part Wendy in Hook.

Ralph L said...

We see this benefit with Bill Clinton's trying to find Lewinsky a government job
The perjury that got short shrift was WJC saying the sex started after she got a paying job, not before as Monica claimed.

The bargain was implicit. How do you complain about that? The allegations I saw didn't including casting people--it was outside the normal process. Should have been a hint to the women what was expected.

Martin said...

Weinstein's modus operandi sounds a lot like how Bill Clinton used the Arkansas Highway Patrol when he was Governor.

Darrell said...

STDs must run rampant through Hollywood.

There is a website with the top fifty Hollywood stars with herpes--I believe Laslo direcred us to that a few days ago. They couldn't come up with fifty names for a website of Hollywood stars without herpes.

JAORE said...

The asterisk works in baseball because everyone with one did the same thing. We can do better than that.

Sure, but the asterisk works well for the Laslo treatment....

Ralph L said...

But when the Law no longer cares to even attempt to do its job, you are left with Murder by teams of paid murderers, like Clinton, Inc does business.

It's the last decades of the Roman Republic. More wealth than they could stomach, and too much ambition for their morals.

Kevin said...

Should I care if someone slept with someone else to get ahead in the world? I don't think I do. I do think it would be interesting to hear, a la Freeman's suggestion, an actor saying "I did such-and-such for this person, with this promised, and nothing happened"

It's not just for you. It's for the people in Hollywood who were harmed and can properly sue for damages. It's to let everyone know who played and who was innocent. And it's vital if the mess is really to be cleaned up and not just papered over.

You can't solve a problem if you don't know how deep it goes.

Which is why they'll all try t quickly move on if they can.

AllenS said...

Please watch the clip Ralph L posted at 8:57 AM. The point being made is every fucking one of the actors and actresses knew about HW, and the audience who are actors and actresses laughed about it. Pure comedy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Althouse: A "bad bargain" is when you agree to give something that's much more valuable that what the other side agreed to give. That is not the same as what I was talking about in the quote that you are responding to, which was when the other side doesn't perform on its end of the deal. That is a breach of the bargain, which might have been a good bargain.

Good correction on the distinction between bad bargain and breach of bargain.

I was thinking that if you "thought" you had a deal or bargain made....Actress thinks if she will submit to sex act she will get the starring role....but then gets a subordinate role that would be a bad bargain. She still got something in return. Then again, none of these "transactions" were ever made formal. All based on assumptions.

I guess it depends on how much value she/he puts on her/his own morality and use of her/his body as to whether the bargain was bad or not.

Skippy Tisdale said...

It has been suggested elsewhere, that his choice to go to rehab in Europe is so that it can occur in a non-extradition country alla Polanski.

robother said...

Ann's question highlights the whole artificial nature of legal and moral judgements in the arena of show business, where sex and money are hopelessly intertwined at every level, especially the end product.

The legal/moral fiction we want to impose on these transactions is that there are 2 kinds of women involved: the virginal innocent who had no reason to suspect anything at all fishy in the invite to audition in a hotel room, and the whorish adventuress who knew exactly what the nature of the negotiation was.

We assume that journalists and jurors (and we ourselves) making judgements will sort the virgins from the whores with unerring accuracy. Of course, the lawyers (at least) among us know how much these legal fictions are a product of carefully manipulated and edited versions of what really happened. With the exception of true pedophilia victims (which Hollywood seems to produce with some regularity), I doubt that anyone was the naive innocent her lawyers will now portray.

MadisonMan said...

It's not just for you. It's for the people in Hollywood who were harmed and can properly sue for damages. It's to let everyone know who played and who was innocent. And it's vital if the mess is really to be cleaned up and not just papered over.

It seems that you seek Utopia. IME, people will do many things to get ahead in the world. That someone doesn't do this ( = trade their body for a promised benefit ) does not mean they are -- to use your word -- 'innocent'. It means they have calculated a different path to get to where they want to be.

I think we both agree some degree of open-ness is needed. No need to hide it behind studio doors.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I wonder how many women making such bargains are figuring in the costs to their health in the long run (physical and mental) if they are having sexx with people who are having sexx with others who really do not give a damn if you contract something.

Exactly. Not that many I suspect have this type of long term thinking or deep thoughts, because they are young, invincible (they think) and don't value themselves. They are willing to throwaway their own moral code, if they had one, and to trash their self respect to make the deal.

I've always thought Feminism is a giant crock. When the Feminists backed up Bill Clinton and made excuses for his sexual predations and then backed Hillary for enabling and going along with the arrangements it just showed that the movement was nothing about advancing or protecting women.

Hillary is worse than Bill.

johns said...


I was reminded of reading this story. If Fosse "always slept with his leading ladies" we can add a lot of names to the list. It starts to look as if a Hollywood director would be a sucker NOT to expect sex for film roles.

"Bob Fosse, the director of Star 80, went on drug-fueled rampages at night. He hit on her, chased her around couches, ranted that he always slept with his leading ladies, [Mariel] Hemingway claims"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3043726/Mariel-Hemingway-dishes-men-hit-Hollywood-like-Robert-Niro-Eric-Roberts.html#ixzz4vDa2oczL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

EDH said...

Maybe Hollywood can virtue signal by shaving their heads like the French women accused of collaborating -- or sleeping with -- the occupying Nazis ?

Breezy said...

"Bob, have you ever met a woman? If so, you should know their generic capacity for rationalization. She will tell herself whatever she needs to feel good."

I'd venture there was a lot of rationalization going on with the team of people enabling HW. Men and women alike.

Char Char Binks said...

"What would be brave would be for someone to come forward and say, "He said he would help my career if I slept with him, so I did, and this is the part he got for me."

But there are no whores or gold-digging women, only sexually abusive men -- that's feminism.

MadisonMan said...

Hillary is worse than Bill.

Agreed. Hillary (and the Press) conspired to keep everything secret.

I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Hillary. She is married to a man who is seemingly a sexual predator. That created a series of choices that she had to make. I think she made the wrong ones -- but who knows really what's going on inside a marriage.

I am happy she is not President.

Michael K said...

But there are no whores or gold-digging women, only sexually abusive men -- that's feminism.

Then there are the child actors.

Bad Lieutenant said...

What kind of woman in her mid 60s, and married again at that, publicizes on her open blog that she really really enjoys giving

Link to the post or comment in question please, it's hard to get one's fap on without it. Obviously unsearchable, and why bother when it's obviously seared into your brain?

Gahrie said...

I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Hillary

Not me. Not after the way she treated her husband's victims.

TWW said...

"We've alrteady established what you are; we are only negotiating the price."

Kevin said...

I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Hillary.

She made a good bargain in staying married to a sexual predator to keep him from getting kicked out of the White House in exchange for being the first woman President.

But then the agreement was breached when Bill and Barack didn't deliver the goods.

She probably feels less like one of Harvey's insiders than one of his actresses.

tcrosse said...

I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Hillary.

I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Lady Macbeth.

Kevin said...

Only a dumb bunny feminist, or a kept mama, would think that it is brave to sell yourself and then tell stories about your bargain.

The true feminist would argue that she not only did it, but got the much better end of the deal.

Let's see how many of them there are in Hollywood these days.

Assrat said...

If Weinstein owned a shoe factory, he would have been sued to oblivion by the third harassed aglet-mounter. Good. He'd deserve it.

I'm fine with holding Hollywood to the same standards.

And are there women lying about their relationship with Weinstein to make themselves sound like victims or above it all? Of course. Did Weinstein treat some women professionally? Certainly.

Who's lying? No idea.

Unknown said...

Boy, Roman Polanski's stock sure took a nosedive this week.

tcrosse said...

So, what did Harvey get from the Clintons in exchange for all that money ?

holdfast said...

Acting, Pr0n, Modelling and Professional Sports are the only industries that come to mind where men and women are NOT in competition for the same jobs (I wish I could add ground combat). I all/most other fields, a woman (or man) who uses sex to climb the ladder has, at least in theory, injured the careers of the competing men and women who didn't put out.

CStanley said...

The true feminist would argue that she not only did it, but got the much better end of the deal.

Well, a certain kind of feminist would see it that way.

Personally I think that a major problem for our society regarding sexual morality is that most everyone sells themselves. Even the commonly accepted as conservative view that it's perfectly moral to practice serial monogamy lacks a backstop against exploitation because the two parties are only agreeing to lease their bodies to each other. Even more so when you move along the spectrum to the also now common view that all sex is morally ok as long as it's consensual (in this case we move to renting by the hour instead of a longer term lease.)

The only consistent, principled way to accept those kinds of arrangements as morally good is to view sex completely as a commodity, which also means viewing our bodies and our very beings that way.

It's a problem though, because deep down we really don't believe this is true. Once people give up their dignity by behaving this way though, turning back is hard.

n.n said...

The Church controversy all over again. However, this time, it's the Pro-Choice Church, and it's not a number of transgender clergy, but a hyperactive heterosexual male, and perhaps overly ambitious females. The Church and its liberal quasi-religion are on the blocks. The DNC may want to consider losing or upgrading its religion.

Hari said...

Imagine there are two actresses, A and B.
They are the two best candidates for a role.
A is slightly better than B.
Both are offered the role if they sleep with the producer.
There are four possible outcomes (not necessarily equally likely):

(1) A declines, B declines, A gets the role. (The right casting result. B assumes incorrectly that her career was harmed)
(2) A accepts, B declines, A gets the role. (The right casting result. B assumes incorrectly that her career was harmed)
(3) A declines, B accepts, B gets the role (The wrong casting result. A assumes correctly that her career was harmed)
(4) A accepts, B accepts, A gets the role (The right casting result. B was cheated, sues and gets paid off)

I think the question in this blog post is what is the culpability of each actress under those scenarios in which she accepts and gets (or does not get) the role.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...People resting on free market concepts need to step up their level of analysis.

Respectfully, ma'am, people using free market concepts on this topic may believe they won't get very far.
In your earlier discussion with rhhardin you indicated you reject a free market framework for the willing sale and purchase of sexual favors for employment/work benefits because that transaction has bad effects on third parties (other women). The modern free market concept does take into consideration negative externalities, but without being willing to define and quantify some values we can't get very far with any kind of analysis. In other words people here may have taken your assertion that the hypothetical transaction can't be evaluated just by examining the individuals who want to do business to be an assertion that free market concepts can't be applied to this topic. Possibly that's an incorrect inference.

Additionally I asked whether if we thought deeply about the concept that a core/fundamental individual right (like the right to sell one's labor or body, to use one's sexuality for personal gain,e tc) could be severely restricted by the State based on a possible/speculative negative externality that transaction might cause for society at large we shouldn't also apply that thinking to other topics like abortion. I didn't get a response so it seemed like the question was insufficiently interesting.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Why is it wrong to make decisions based on sexual attraction, again?
We all know the role emotions play in cognition and decision making.
We all understand that it's stupid to believe we're purely rational or that we can make rational, objective decisions.
It follows therefore that how attractive we find someone must play a role in our decisions about them, willingness to hire them, to do deals with them, etc.

If we say a boss choosing whom to hire based on the boss' sexual attraction to potential employees ought to be illegal--as discriminatory--aren't we really arguing that we can drive emotion of a certain kind away when making certain decisions?

James K said...

(4) A accepts, B accepts, A gets the role (The right casting result. B was cheated, sues and gets paid off)

If the producer is worried about this scenario, he can do it sequentially. Once A accepts, then B is out of the picture (so to speak), or can be offered a different role if she accepts.

rhhardin said...

(4) A accepts, B accepts, A gets the role (The right casting result. B was cheated, sues and gets paid off)

The model is an auction system. High bidder wins. You don't sell it again to somebody else.

tim in vermont said...

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day covers a lot of these scenarios, and remains a cute movie with the sex off screen.

tim in vermont said...

Slight spoiler alert, he sells the role twice (It's a back story. )

Sebastian said...

"Everyone felt powerless to go up against him . . . One person alone boycotting him wouldn't have been able to bring him down" Even the ones that had power didn't want to bring him down. Remember, HW was a key cog in the prog Media-Political Complex. HW was useful. He supported the right politics and the right politicians. He paid a lot of political protection money. The left's lust for power, which he aided and abetted, was always greater than in its interest in fair treatment for women. Still is.

rhhardin said...

On casting, mathematicians have it solved. The problem is you have N actresses available and you need to pick the one to offer the deal to, having them up for an interview one at a time. You have to decide on the spot, and can't go backwards.

How to you get the hottest babe?

The answer is that your odds of getting the hot babe are best if you let N/e (e~=2.7) of them go by without an offer, and then pick the next one that's hotter than any of them you've seen.

In the worst case, you wind up with the last babe; but otherwise do pretty well.

It's called the secretary problem.

Unknown said...

Congratulations to Althouse for her exemplary coverage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Let no minute tidbit of information go unnoticed! Pay no attention to North Korea saying Trump has lit the “wick of war”. What is a nuclear conflagration compared to a nice big juicy sex scandal, especially if it involves Democrats!

robother said...

Unknown is right! Why is Ann wasting precious pixels on Weinstein in this age of internet scarcity? Why even now when it comes to expressing my concern about Trump and North Korea, I am running ou

SDaly said...

Reports coming out (and they make more sense than dozens of actresses phones were hacked and Apple has always denied a "cloud" hack) that "the fappening" leak of nude photos of actresses all came from Weinstein's phone.

Drago said...

And we see Unknown taking his/her/xer rightful place in support of the North Korean communist madman!

Did. Not. See. That. Coming.

I guess with Venezuela collapsing the lefties need a new boyfriend.

SDaly said...

If (1) the Supreme Court rules that unions can't require non-union members pay fees (which then are funneled to support Democrats) and (2) Hollywood money becomes tainted as the public becomes disgusted with the entire industry, where will Democrat candidates get their campaign funds?

Kevin said...

Congratulations to Althouse for her exemplary coverage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Let no minute tidbit of information go unnoticed! Pay no attention to North Korea saying Trump has lit the “wick of war”. What is a nuclear conflagration compared to a nice big juicy sex scandal, especially if it involves Democrats!

I now know Inga was hoping Trump would win. if she didn't know before, I hope it is becoming clear to her as well.

If Hillary won and all the posts were about her administration, Inga would be so bored taking about all the payoffs and backstabbing and new allegations about what Bill was doing with the White House interns. She would not like talking about the Clinton Global Foundation every week. How country A paid the CGF right before country A got the latest weapons system.

She'd be so frustrated we were still talking about Hillary's latest war, and why it was OK Iran took over Iraq because Hillary gave them the wink and nod to do it. She'd be downplaying the NORK ICBM's that can now reach 3/4 of CONUS, because "No sane person thinks Kim would use them".

Every day would be "why is Ann focusing on this when we should be debating Mitch McConnell's health care fix which doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing?" Every day would be "why are you picking on Hillary when we could be discussing what some Republican Congressman Tweeted over the weekend?"

The past few days have shown how uninterested she is in playing defense. She certainly wouldn't want to do that for the next four years, let alone eight.

She needs offense to thrive. She needs Trump, Trump, Trump! And she needs it bad!

lgv said...

I have gone through the database of HW movies. If there were those who willingly took the quid pro quo, you would expect to see their names associated with multiple HW movies. Besides the Goopster and McGowan, who already commented, the names of multiple HW appearances was a bit surprising, if not shocking. Toni Collete, Neve Campbell, Salma Hayek, Rosie O'Donnell....

The Godfather said...

We're getting all these issues about What if an actress did X, or What if Harvey promised Y to an actress, etc., but nobody's talking about the plight of the poor male actor. He's got no chance to further his career by giving Harvey a naked massage, because Harvey doesn't want a naked massage from a guy (at least I've heard no evidence that Harvey's ambisextrous). Isn't this the ultimate injustice?

Michael K said...

Oh Oh, Cyrus Vance Jr, the NY DA has now gotten singed by the Weinstein scandal.

The DA's office claimed that the Special Victims Unit hadn't coordinated with the DA to learn what needed to be proven in the case -- like that you needed to establish "criminal intent" in a case about a guy grabbing a woman's tits.

Apparently the DA is claiming that you need Harvey Weinstein admitting on tape, "When I groped your breasts without permission, I had criminal intent to do so." Apparently it's not the sort of thing that can be inferred from circumstances or the common sense dictate that you do not grope a woman's breasts without permission.

Nope: The DA is claiming you need to get Weinstein on tape announcing his criminal intent, and also, that the SVU doesn't understand what it takes to prove a sex crime case. Because apparently this is their first rodeo.


And

Cyrus Vance Jr. received $10,000 from Harvey Weinstein's lawyer David Boies shortly after his office declined to prosecute Weinstein. FYI.

The NYPD fired back, saying, "the case was carried out by experienced detectives and supervisors from NYPD’s Special Victims Unit."
"The detectives used well established investigative techniques. The recorded conversation with the subject corroborates the acts that were the basis for the victim’s complaint to the police a day earlier. This follow-up recorded conversation was just one aspect of the case against the subject," the statement continued. "This evidence, along with other statements and timeline information was presented to the office of the Manhattan District Attorney."


It’s something Pace University Law professor Bennett Gershman backs up.

"You are listening to a sexual pervert ply his trade," Gershman told CBS2's Brian Conybeare. “It’s so easy, and for a prosecutor to say there’s no proof of say there’s not proof of criminal intent? That's what the prosecutor Vance said, that's just so, so wrong."


I wonder how long before Vance returns the money ?

Michael K said...

Inga, did you ever meet Weinstein? Like in a hotel room in Madison while he was location scouting ?

Or something ?

tcrosse said...

Inga, did you ever meet Weinstein? Like in a hotel room in Madison while he was location scouting ?

Probably not, which is why she's Unknown.

fivewheels said...

"I have some small (small) amount of sympathy for Hillary. She is married to a man who is seemingly a sexual predator."

Wow, how did that happen? What awful luck. Too bad she didn't get to choose and carefully vet whom to marry. She could have used those same skills and character judgment to fill her administration.

isthmus legend said...

Weinstein left the country. Smart move. His freedom and fortune are at risk in the US now. Let's see if all of his US accounts leave with him. He understands how and when jewish lawyers smell blood from a fresh wound.

I suppose some people in Hollywood wanted to see him gone. When Trump was elected, they saw their chance. There is no way any of this would have gone down under a Clinton II administration.

Michael K said...

"There is no way any of this would have gone down under a Clinton II administration."

Bingo !

tcrosse said...

"There is no way any of this would have gone down under a Clinton II administration."

Clintons and Going Down go together like a horse and carriage. Not necessarily like Love and Marriage.

Gahrie said...

Weinstein left the country. Smart move. His freedom and fortune are at risk in the US now. Let's see if all of his US accounts leave with him. He understands how and when jewish lawyers smell blood from a fresh wound.

Wow..nice use of gratuitous anti-semetism. And so original too.

I suppose some people in Hollywood wanted to see him gone.

Yeah...his brother.

Gahrie said...

where will Democrat candidates get their campaign funds?

Public funding of campaign will become the next fundamental right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Michael K said...

The campaign funding situation and the absence of any intelligent life in Congress is the result of the McCain Feingold law.

Congress critters spend all their time raising money and staffs write legislation, such as it is,.

No Congress critter wrote Obamacare, It was written by 25 year old lawyers on Pelosi's staff plus insurance company lobbyists.

The McCain bill has destroyed Congress which, even when Lyndon Johnson was there, wrote their own bills.

Zach said...

Although not in Hollywood, I’m in an industry where, yes, there are men of power who expect women to pay tribute with their bodies for opportunities. I have missed chances because I have not played the game. Other women have played along, often gleefully. They are empowered by leading a powerful man around by his dingus. They see it as strength, but it hurts us all.

The solidarity angle is interesting. What about blaming the women for giving in because it makes it harder for other women *not* to give in? Or are we pretending that a starlet can go to a sleazy movie producer's hotel room early in the morning and be innocently shocked at what she encounters?

Interestingly, I had lunch with a friend whose daughter is a (very minor) actress in New York City a couple of weeks ago, before the Weinstein news broke. He knew she would like to move back to California, but he was dead set against her going to Hollywood, for exactly this reason.

cf said...

I was just looking at links of Ronan Farrow interviewed on NBC, the one that did NOT break the news or even report it afterwards.

There are so many facets of this drama, an intriguing time capsule event for 2017, no? The one dropping my jaw right now is not about the terrible choices women are Allowed to make with NO Judgement Ever.

The one in my heart is watching Lauer awkward, caught in the net of power, his own WorldWidePower Corporation shutting this story down. And I can't help but think of Hillary Clinton and her vast control of messaging, where we are not allowed to view the made for tv ABC movie about them.

Wow. that is power. Power to control the "news" and the culture. And I see big Mr. W exercised that same fearful power of that control that Hillary has had, perhaps from similar connections and sources.

And, OH! it is AWESOME if a portion of this collapse of a man's reputation signals that people are shaking awake and that even Clinton's walls of power are also crumbling around us all. potent moments here and now, i can't help but hope.

godspeed, america.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Gahrie said...
Weinstein left the country. Smart move. His freedom and fortune are at risk in the US now. Let's see if all of his US accounts leave with him. He understands how and when jewish lawyers smell blood from a fresh wound.

Like Cyrus Vance, Jr.?

Wow..nice use of gratuitous anti-semetism. And so original too.

I don't know if Gloria Allred, never was a truer name, is Jewish or not, not does it seem to matter to me. But this fellow, whose handle I dimly remember like some recluse in an H.P. Lovecraft story, has popped in before and similarly laid an egg. He won't be back. He probably doesn't even know her name.

I suppose some people in Hollywood wanted to see him gone.

Yeah...his brother.


No, don't you think that the Hilary faction has counted on him as an ally? Could this move not be by the Obama faction? Maybe Malia's internship there takes on a new meaning. Maybe her presence allowed the Secret Service to wiretap HW or collect evidence or talk to people.

Bad Lieutenant said...


And, OH! it is AWESOME if a portion of this collapse of a man's reputation signals that people are shaking awake and that even Clinton's walls of power are also crumbling around us all. potent moments here and now, i can't help but hope.

godspeed, america.


For great justice, it should take out the Obamaites too.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Blogger Oso Negro said...
Lindsey Lohan!
10/11/17, 8:27 AM


You know what, the girl's got heart. The poor sad tart's got heart. She didn't have to do that. Call it the Widow's Mite.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Fact is, maybe that's how deep the rabbit hole goes, that he left the country.

Kevin said...

Fact is, maybe that's how deep the rabbit hole goes, that he left the country.

Unlike Polanski, Harvey is going to have legal problems in Europe as well.

"So far five accusers have given accounts of attacks in France, while allegations of attacks in London have also surfaced – any of which could lead to charges there."

Rick said...

Unknown said...
Congratulations to Althouse for her exemplary coverage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Let no minute tidbit of information go unnoticed!


This may be the biggest victory against sexual harassment ever yet Inga's only takeaway is that it doesn't help Democrats so we shouldn't pay attention. Another rube self-identifies.

Breezy said...

If there were allegations of rape among those 8 payoffs/NDAs, are the lawyers who drew those up complicit in the crime?

rhhardin said...

If I heard the clip right, Ed Asner came on MSNBC with Chris Janning to talk about Hollywood sexual harrassment and asked her for a kiss at the beginning and the end.

I don't know either one, but that's a pretty droll move to get the newsbabe panties in a wad, if I'm reading it right.

The serious journalist act meets Hollywood.

Rusty said...

Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...
Fact is, maybe that's how deep the rabbit hole goes, that he left the country.

The joke around the office is that he's in rehab in a country that has no extradition treaty with us.

Darrell said...

Harvey went to Arizona. Same place as Tiger Woods.

James said...

For those that have speculated on the women that greased Weinstein's willy after some implied payoff, where is the proof? Contracts have legal repercussions if not honored. Verbal contracts do as well. But, when the verbal contract is he said, she said, there is definitely wiggle room. What would some female do if Weinstein didn't make her a star? Get a lawyer and say, "He promised me I would be in the movie version of "Harvey"! I wasn't. I want revenge!' From a legal perspective, that is a non-winner. Especially since her tongue was in Harvey. However, if the female is continually confrontational, then maybe she gets a payoff. A payoff, which the sleaze bags in Harvey's legal department would make sure does contain various requirements for the cash prize. Like keeping her mouth shut. As long a Weinstein was a donor in good standing to the DNC and a successful producer, he was protected. He was in a win-win situation. He is being thrown under the bus now and everyone is running for cover. The logistics behind this is what I find interesting.

FIDO said...

Every single journalist who is worthy of the name (cricket) should ON CAMERA, be asking these actresses "Now we know about Harvey. Who else is or has done the same thing? Are you saying that ONLY Harvey Weinstein made these sort of advances?"


Let's see the ladies sweat a little and have the opportunity to be truly brave!

But that is the festering sore that Hollywood does not want lanced. Who else is/has done this?

It is telling that someone cited Affleck apologizing for a 14 year old groping incident with a minor actress. Most of the big name guys are quaking in their boots because they thought they would always get away with it.

Rodrigo Alonso said...

The women that did not rejected the sexual advance with Weinstein
(assuming there were some)
are no obligation to declare it.
This is because, and one can see it in the tone of the question,
one can tell that they may be unfairly miss judged.
They were trapped in a situation where fear, confusion, or limited physical strength,
may not have resulted in a clear rejection/avoidance of sexual activity.
It was a form of extortion.

Is it possible that one or two of the women took the sexual deal
as a welcome opportunity to get ahead?
No, I do not think so.
(and it would not matter anyways, a victim is a victim;
it is not less of a victim because the victimization was not avoided)

Also, a woman who plays that game does not need to be tricked, she would be the
one inviting...
So, in all of these cases, where a business meeting at the lobby became
a request for a meeting at the room, I think none of the women
wanted to be in this situation.

Then, maybe it is better that we never know who was taken advantage of.
Why should we know that.
For whom benefit is that info.

Rodrigo