Thread: Interview with Harvey Weinstein's Lawyer

After watching this, I feel like my suspicions have been confirmed. Harvey Weinstein is innocent of any rape or sexual assault and should have been acquitted. There was ZERO physical evidence in any of the cases. Not one woman who accused him went to the police to report it and get a rape kit done. Not one. It's pretty clear what happened. These actresses asked, "Whose dick to I have to suck to get a part in this town?" and the answer was Harvey Weinstein. So they did that, and got the parts promised. They were all economic transactions; they were sex for movie roles. That's prostitution, not rape. They consented to doing sexual shit with an ugly dude who was powerful in the business. And he rewarded them with movie parts. Then, when the roles dried up because they got old and ugly, they turned on him. They were mad that they could no longer get roles, so they blamed him and falsely accused him of rape and other assaults.

If I had been on that jury, I would have voted to acquit, and I would have endured all the other jurors insults and harassment, but would not change my vote. So either they would all have to join me and give him an acquittal or it would have been a mistrial. Either way, I would go on TV the next day and accuses every single one of his accusers of being a liar and a whore who can't get parts anymore because she's too ugly.

What happened in this case was a man was unjustly convicted of rape with no physical evidence, no police reports, and no rape kits. All it took was a bunch of bitter, post-wall, angry has-been actresses. It's a nightmare out there.

https://youtu.be/foT7VtupDBs

Edit:
I transcribed part of the interview:

Interviewer: Coming forward cannot be an easy decision. It brings intimidation. It brings intense scrutiny. It can ruin a career. Surely a woman's not going to do that unless she's telling the truth.

Rotunno: I think that's probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. There are so many reasons why people lie. People lie on a regular basis, whether we're talking about sexual assault or whether we're talking about if they made a phone call, whether or not they showed up to work on time, people lie. We live in a society of people who lie. So to say that we should only question people, on every other aspect, but we should never question them on sexual assault [interrrupted]

As I remarked on a similar posting, if you are a high profile rich guy like Trump (Stormy Daniels etc), Epstein, Weinstein etc, you had better flee the feminist USA! All these guys had the same thing in common - they paid for sex, even paid for a NDA as Trump did, then the feminist horde tore them apart to try to get more money - turned into a feeding frenzy with women coming out of nowhere with new unsubstantiated allegations. Once the feminists started rolling back or suspending the statute of limitations as in California or NY to gin up more lawsuit shakedown cash, guys with assets better flee to macho countries that don't permit this type of legal extortion. I'm not an Epstein or Weinstein fan, but they paid for their sex via money or parts in movies . . . their mistake was to do this in the USA with sexual harassment and divorce lawyers roaming hungrily around seeking rich guys to devour.

As I remarked on a similar posting, if you are a high profile or rich guy like Trump (Stormy Daniels etc), Epstein, Weinstein etc, you had better flee the feminist USA and become a passport bro! All these guys had the same thing in common - they paid for sex, even paid for a NDA as Trump did, then the feminist horde tore them apart to try to get more money and attention - turned into a feeding frenzy with more women coming out of nowhere with new unsubstantiated allegations; Once the feminists started rolling back or suspending the statute of limitations as in California or NY to gin up more lawsuit shakedown cash, guys with assets better flee to macho countries that don't permit this type of legal extortion. I'm not an Epstein or Weinstein fan, but they paid for their sex via money or parts in movies . . . their mistake was to do this in the USA with sexual harassment and divorce lawyers roaming hungrily around seeking rich guys to devour.

Originally Posted by CPRA

As I remarked on a similar posting, if you are a high profile rich guy like Trump (Stormy Daniels etc), Epstein, Weinstein etc, you had better flee the feminist USA! All these guys had the same thing in common - they paid for sex, even paid for a NDA as Trump did, then the feminist horde tore them apart to try to get more money - turned into a feeding frenzy with women coming out of nowhere with new unsubstantiated allegations. Once the feminists started rolling back or suspending the statute of limitations as in California or NY to gin up more lawsuit shakedown cash, guys with assets better flee to macho countries that don't permit this type of legal extortion. I'm not an Epstein or Weinstein fan, but they paid for their sex via money or parts in movies . . . their mistake was to do this in the USA with sexual harassment and divorce lawyers roaming hungrily around seeking rich guys to devour.

Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Trump. However, the last thing I'm worried about is that he paid Stormy Daniels for sex. As long as they both consented, I'm good. I've been saying for years that the government needs to stay out of the sexual lives of consenting adults, and that includes consenting adults who exchange money for the sex.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Trump. However, the last thing I'm worried about is that he paid Stormy Daniels for sex. As long as they both consented, I'm good. I've been saying for years that the government needs to stay out of the sexual lives of consenting adults, and that includes consenting adults who exchange money for the sex.

I'm going to go full disclosure as well, even if it brings a storm on me; Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment, not of any form of sexual assault. I'm sure the California laws are fairly close to those here in flyover country, in that one of the definitions of sexual harassment is connecting sexual acts with employment or employment opportunity. Yes, he's guilty of that. However, I have to wonder how many of the his accusers either proposed the exchange or went to meet with him fully expecting him to offer the exchange.

As I stated in another post, the women who accused him were not naive girls right off of the farm; they were young actresses who had spent at least a few years struggling to break into the entertainment industry and knew the sleazy side of the industry and of Weinstein himself. I do not believe that when one of them received an offer to meet with Weinstein, in his hotel room, to "discuss an opportunity" she didn't know what sort of deal Harvey had in mind. No, that doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it legal, but it does make it something other than assault.

Harvey fit the narrative perfectly; he's an unattractive, older white man with a great deal of power in the entertainment industry. He used this power to get sexual enjoyment from younger, attractive women. In several first hand accounts, the women emphasized how repugnant they found him, not the circumstances that put them in the situation. These women accepted a choice; give Harvey a little action and get a part that might turn into a big break or say no to Harvey and continue to struggle with bit parts and hope for a break that might never come.

Nobody, man or woman, should ever have to face the choice of providing sexual favors in order to get a job. That's why (in my opinion) he should have been prosecuted. However, he did not rape or sexually assault his "victims". The charges should have been sexual harassment or perhaps soliciting prostitution. However, he fit the narrative so well that everyone jumped on the "Harvey is Satan incarnate" bandwagon, in order to deflect any investigation of themselves.

The flip side here is that these actresses were guilty of "lookism". If they had been going to Brad Pitt to audition for the job on the casting couch, would they have cried rape? If Brad Pitt does it, it is romantic; if Harvey Weinstein does it, it is sexual harassment. Reminds me of a Russian court case where a secretary claimed her boss was sexually harassing her. The Russian judge listened as she described how the boss would give her back massages and suggest going to a hotel room. The judge then issued his judgment - "Russia needs more Russians - Case Dismissed!" LOL

Originally Posted by Jadedoldman65

I'm going to go full disclosure as well, even if it brings a storm on me; Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment, not of any form of sexual assault. I'm sure the California laws are fairly close to those here in flyover country, in that one of the definitions of sexual harassment is connecting sexual acts with employment or employment opportunity. Yes, he's guilty of that. However, I have to wonder how many of the his accusers either proposed the exchange or went to meet with him fully expecting him to offer the exchange.

As I stated in another post, the women who accused him were not naive girls right off of the farm; they were young actresses who had spent at least a few years struggling to break into the entertainment industry and knew the sleazy side of the industry and of Weinstein himself. I do not believe that when one of them received an offer to meet with Weinstein, in his hotel room, to "discuss an opportunity" she didn't know what sort of deal Harvey had in mind. No, that doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it legal, but it does make it something other than assault.

Harvey fit the narrative perfectly; he's an unattractive, older white man with a great deal of power in the entertainment industry. He used this power to get sexual enjoyment from younger, attractive women. In several first hand accounts, the women emphasized how repugnant they found him, not the circumstances that put them in the situation. These women accepted a choice; give Harvey a little action and get a part that might turn into a big break or say no to Harvey and continue to struggle with bit parts and hope for a break that might never come.

Nobody, man or woman, should ever have to face the choice of providing sexual favors in order to get a job. That's why (in my opinion) he should have been prosecuted. However, he did not rape or sexually assault his "victims". The charges should have been sexual harassment or perhaps soliciting prostitution. However, he fit the narrative so well that everyone jumped on the "Harvey is Satan incarnate" bandwagon, in order to deflect any investigation of themselves.

To add to this, while I think Weinstein was a Moron, just watch this. The way this girl eggs the "unwanted attention" on and Lo and Behold 20 years later is getting on the bandwagon. Walk out of the room and do business elsewhere if you are uncomfortable, you idiots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC4eog5cY9Q

Originally Posted by mattbronn

To add to this, while I think Weinstein was a Moron, just watch this. The way this girl eggs the "unwanted attention" on and Lo and Behold 20 years later is getting on the bandwagon. Walk out of the room and do business elsewhere if you are uncomfortable, you idiots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC4eog5cY9Q

Yeah, he's clearly a douchebag. That was a business meeting, and there should not have been any hugging or flirting. He should have just shook her and and then stuck to business. I honestly think that Jadedoldman65 is right. He's guilty of sexual harassment, but not rape. Of course, if you even remotely suggested such a possibility around feminists, they would go full-on apeshit.

It's cringey watching that video. I could have done a much better job than that ass. If you have a business meeting, and the woman you're meeting happens to be hot, you just keep it professional. Stick to the business. You don't need to press into her body with a hug or to do other shit. Your job is to make good movies, not to get your dick wet. Yeah, he's a douchebag and a dumb-ass. He had a good thing going with the Miramax Films thing. If he got horny, I'm sure there are plenty of extremely good call girls in Hollywood. He could have scratched that itch with them. Instead, he used his power as a film producer to get sex. Fucking dumb ass. Don't shit where you eat.

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

Don't shit where you eat.

Exactly.

It's just good practice to never be alone with a woman where she can bring allegations against you. Business P2P, well that is why you are there, is the only exception. Be extra careful at work, the fastest way up the ladder is having rungs removed. Trust no one, and always have a witness with you if the meeting is not videoed.

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

Exactly.

It's just good practice to never be alone with a woman where she can bring allegations against you. Business P2P, well that is why you are there, is the only exception. Be extra careful at work, the fastest way up the ladder is having rungs removed. Trust no one, and always have a witness with you if the meeting is not videoed.

Exactly. Not doing anything douchy, and keeping it all professional, is no guarantee you won't get accused of some bullshit.

According to Trump's deposition, he has no clue who that E. Jean Whatever is - just some crazy woman who has rape fantasies and who sued him for rape that happened supposedly 20 odd years ago . . . This could happen to any guy . . .

Originally Posted by TigPlaze

Exactly. Not doing anything douchy, and keeping it all professional, is no guarantee you won't get accused of some bullshit.