- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,886
- 52,787
- 3,605
Matt Damon, Russell Crowe Reportedly Helped Kill a 2004 New York Times Harvey Weinstein Article
As many know, Harvey Weinstein was a powerful man in Hollywood who ran the show. Trouble is, he loved to abuse women and even those who did not tow his political leanings.
Because of his power and influence and political leanings, people simply did not report him. For decades, or more, Harvey was free to sexually harass women and threaten those who opposed him on political matters.
For example, it is now reported that Harvey sent Matt Damon and Russell Crow to "dispel" allegations of sexual misconduct a reporter was about to expose. We now know that Matt Damon and Russell Crow are nothing more that left winged tools
Matt Damon, Russell Crowe Reportedly Helped Kill a 2004 New York Times Harvey Weinstein Article
So what broke the camel's back? Why was he exposed now? From what I hear, he was a big Hillary supporter. Was the fact that Hillary lost part of the reason people felt empowered to bring him down?
We have this article from the Daily Beast.
Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable.
Harvey Weinstein represents much more than the reviled coastal elites disdained by Trump voters (despite the fact that Donald Trump is one himself.) Weinstein’s growing scandal represents yet another instance of liberal hypocrisy on issues liberals relentlessly criticize conservatives on. After all, conservatives were allegedly responsible for a War on Women, but yet again we have a liberal man accused of privately mounting his own War on Women, and hiding in part behind his public support of feminist causes and candidates to do so. Conservatives will be quick to point out it’s not the first time, and they’d be right. (Weinstein is even blaming a right-wing conspiracy. Sound familiar?)
It is worth noting that Weinstein, while issuing an apology for some bad past behavior, has also challenged some of the claims in the Times piece, and has threatened to sue. But even if only a fraction of what is alleged in the piece is accurate, combined with previous reports and public knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior and statements, it is baffling that he has remained a welcome face of the Hollywood liberal political establishment.
For instance, as I wrote years ago, long before these latest allegations surfaced, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most prominent defenders of filmmaker Roman Polanski who admitted raping a young girl. Apparently, that wasn’t an important enough detail to matter to Weinstein because Polanski makes good films, so the mogul was a key force behind a petition supporting the director’s release after being taken into custody again in Switzerland in 2009.
Now I want you to take a moment and consider what the reaction would be from prominent progressives if any of the country’s leading conservative donors (The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, take your pick) actively defended an admitted pedophile. I have a feeling the protests and think pieces would never end—at least not until candidates backed by said donors returned money from them.
You know, sort of like the Republican National Committee is asking recipients of donations from Weinstein to do. (Some Democratic elected officials, among them Sen. Elizabeth Warren, had begun donating contributions from Weinstein to charitable causes at the time this piece was filed.)
Not to mention widely circulated tales of poor treatment of employees—of all genders and at all levels—by Weinstein, that if true represent the kind of work environment those who claim to care about labor issues normally balk at.
As many know, Harvey Weinstein was a powerful man in Hollywood who ran the show. Trouble is, he loved to abuse women and even those who did not tow his political leanings.
Because of his power and influence and political leanings, people simply did not report him. For decades, or more, Harvey was free to sexually harass women and threaten those who opposed him on political matters.
For example, it is now reported that Harvey sent Matt Damon and Russell Crow to "dispel" allegations of sexual misconduct a reporter was about to expose. We now know that Matt Damon and Russell Crow are nothing more that left winged tools
Matt Damon, Russell Crowe Reportedly Helped Kill a 2004 New York Times Harvey Weinstein Article
So what broke the camel's back? Why was he exposed now? From what I hear, he was a big Hillary supporter. Was the fact that Hillary lost part of the reason people felt empowered to bring him down?
We have this article from the Daily Beast.
Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable.
Harvey Weinstein represents much more than the reviled coastal elites disdained by Trump voters (despite the fact that Donald Trump is one himself.) Weinstein’s growing scandal represents yet another instance of liberal hypocrisy on issues liberals relentlessly criticize conservatives on. After all, conservatives were allegedly responsible for a War on Women, but yet again we have a liberal man accused of privately mounting his own War on Women, and hiding in part behind his public support of feminist causes and candidates to do so. Conservatives will be quick to point out it’s not the first time, and they’d be right. (Weinstein is even blaming a right-wing conspiracy. Sound familiar?)
It is worth noting that Weinstein, while issuing an apology for some bad past behavior, has also challenged some of the claims in the Times piece, and has threatened to sue. But even if only a fraction of what is alleged in the piece is accurate, combined with previous reports and public knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior and statements, it is baffling that he has remained a welcome face of the Hollywood liberal political establishment.
For instance, as I wrote years ago, long before these latest allegations surfaced, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most prominent defenders of filmmaker Roman Polanski who admitted raping a young girl. Apparently, that wasn’t an important enough detail to matter to Weinstein because Polanski makes good films, so the mogul was a key force behind a petition supporting the director’s release after being taken into custody again in Switzerland in 2009.
Now I want you to take a moment and consider what the reaction would be from prominent progressives if any of the country’s leading conservative donors (The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, take your pick) actively defended an admitted pedophile. I have a feeling the protests and think pieces would never end—at least not until candidates backed by said donors returned money from them.
You know, sort of like the Republican National Committee is asking recipients of donations from Weinstein to do. (Some Democratic elected officials, among them Sen. Elizabeth Warren, had begun donating contributions from Weinstein to charitable causes at the time this piece was filed.)
Not to mention widely circulated tales of poor treatment of employees—of all genders and at all levels—by Weinstein, that if true represent the kind of work environment those who claim to care about labor issues normally balk at.
