If you haven’t had the chance to read the New York Times’ exclusive story on Harvey Weinstein, please do so. The lengthy report did on-the-record interviews with several women, including Ashley Judd, who claim that Weinstein harassed them or behaved with extreme misconduct, if not outright assault. The Times details how Weinstein has paid undercover settlements (with NDAs attached, settlements worth between $80K and 150K) to “at least” eight different women, including but probably not limited to: “a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015,” and a woman named Lauren O’Connor, who wrote a memo about Weinstein’s behavior and the many allegations against him back in… 2015. Weinstein has allegedly abused women around the world, mostly in luxury hotels, including the Peninsula, the Savoy in London, the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc near the Cannes Film Festival in France and the Stein Eriksen Lodge near the Sundance Film Festival.
Numerous women have accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. He’s paid at least 8 settlements. NYT exclusive: https://t.co/reQaPjyEv0
— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 5, 2017
In case you hadn’t heard, Harvey’s lawyer Charles Harder has already announced plans to sue the NY Times. So… I guess try to read the story before the NYT takes it down? *nervous laughter* No, seriously.
On the heels of The New York Times’ bombshell exposé published Thursday about “decades of harassment” on the part of Harvey Weinstein, the mogul’s attorney Charles Harder says he’s preparing a lawsuit against the paper.
“The New York Times published today a story that is saturated with false and defamatory statements about Harvey Weinstein,” he writes in an email to The Hollywood Reporter. “It relies on mostly hearsay accounts and a faulty report, apparently stolen from an employee personnel file, which has been debunked by nine different eyewitnesses. We sent the Times the facts and evidence, but they ignored it and rushed to publish. We are preparing the lawsuit now. All proceeds will be donated to women’s organizations.”
Harder is perhaps most famous as the lawyer who represented Hulk Hogan in the litigation that brought down Gawker. He also represented Melania Trump in a defamation action against the parent company of The Daily Mail. That case settled earlier this year. Harder also sent a cease-and-desist letter last year on behalf of Roger Ailes to New York Magazine, and in his career, he has represented many popular stars in entertainment including Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock.
Yes, a lawsuit against the Times at this point feels very Hulk Hogan v. Gawker. By that I mean, Hulk Hogan was mostly mad that he got called out for something he did. The thing about it is though… Hulk Hogan really did take down Gawker, which sucked. Could Weinstein bring down the NYT? Probably not. Especially not if more people come out and tell their stories. Variety also has a story about whether or not “the Weinstein brand” is now toxic. Er, yes? YES, IT IS TOXIC.
Meanwhile, a lot of people are focusing on the Rose McGowan part of the story. The NYT names McGowan as one of the women who got settlements from Weinstein. The NYT says McGowan got a $100,000 settlement in 1996, when Rose was 23 years old, “after an episode at the Sundance Film Festival in a hotel room.” Rose was not interviewed by the NY Times, but she has been tweeting this week. When Weinstein told the Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday that he should buy the rights to their exclusive, Rose tweeted: “I want to buy the movie rights” and “Let’s play get ready to blame the victims.” She and Asia Argento – another one of “Harvey’s former girls” – tweeted back and forth with each other. After the NYT story broke, Rose tweeted this:
Women fight on. And to the men out there, stand up. We need you as allies. #bebrave
— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) October 5, 2017
Anyone who does business with __ is complicit. And deep down you know you are even dirtier. Cleanse yourselves.
— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) October 5, 2017
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I would assume NYT did their work to cover themselves for the inevitable lawsuit. The gawker thing was because the tape was stolen right? So yea that’s a little different.
Anyways his statements yesterday were insane. First he was stepping down, then he admitted he did inappropriate things, then he talked about his “personality” issues. Just ridiculous.
Ready for part 2 to drop. This time with Ronan. Also Lisa Bloom you’re an @$$. Please don’t ever parrot crap about victims rights ever again in life.
I had to read the sentence twice which said Lisa Bloom was representing him. I was shocked. Money always talks though. In the piece, she called him an old dinosaur who has to learn new ways. EYE ROLL. The age excuses for racism and sexism always make me ragey.
He is producing the film version of Bloom’s book….he bought the rights almost as if he knew this was coming and needed one of his threats over her. She’s appcarently into the cash even from someone like him. A man with Hwood’s best known secret.
@HH: That “dinosaur” comment reminded me of the Camille Paglia post that Kaiser wrote the other day. Her argument about Trump’s “old-school playboy ways” was basically the same thing. These women…SMH.
Well, I read his crazy “statement” yesterday as an admission of guilt. I am puzzled how you come out and say the accussations are false after that? In any case I have no doubt that NYT predicted this and hopefully they got eveything cleared before that. I just have a terrible thought that the Emperor in thw White House is just itching to take the New York Times down. I hope that won’t affect the case in any way
So awful how long he’s been able to get away with this!!! I’m just disgusted.
Hollywood is the playground for predators. Its not surprising at all
People don’t usually question his pronouncements, and this babbling is what happens when you live like a little dictator.
I think too because the Terry B tape showed a ‘private moment’. And also, Thiel’s grudge, because they outed him. Gawker fudged up on both accounts, at least on an ethical level. Publishing sex tapes without consent and outing people … they lost the thread there, at least for me.
Back to it though, Weinstein has Thiel money, but the NYT is not Gawker. So I have no idea how this will roll out. With the Cosby case there were already people coming forward again when the story broke? That’s the only other thing I can think of in the same scale as this. I too, am waiting for Ronan.
Exactly. The thing with sex tapes are only two people have ownership rights and both parties have to consent to sell it. There were many legal misses.
THe thing with exposes like this is newspapers often work for months or years crafting the story and gathering info. Lawsuits are a huge reason for that
@Detritus/Nicole: I loved Gawker and miss it terribly, especially given what we’re living through now- they’re sorely needed. I think Peter Thiel is total scum.
They did cross the line, more than once. I’m not surprised they were finally sued, but I *am* surprised that they were taken down completely. It was not right the way that that whole thing played out. Shutting them down completely seemed FAR too harsh a punishment, especially considering the fact that (IIRC), Denton took down the offending post/video, which was something they never did, and caused quite a bit of controversy with both their staff and readers.
I hope that somehow Gawker is able to come back in some form. They absolutely went too far sometimes, but I think that overall it was an important voice for us to have out there. You can’t tell me that Drudge and Breitbart haven’t published some truly horrendous garbage, yet they’re still around (stronger now than ever, it seems 🙄).
And no matter what one’s personal opinion of Gawker was, it is very dangerous, IMO, that one guy with a grudge and a shitload of $$ was able to shutter an entire media company.
Luckily the NYT is in a completely different class than Gawker was, and it will be fine.
Also the generic qualifier of “women’s organisations ” – which ones, Harvey? Shelters?
Gardening? Girl scouts? Women do quite a few things, you know, they’re not just a prop for your PR spin.
His team’s response looks sloppy and rushed. That letter, this message… And the NYT is not written by amateurs, they’ll be ready for his lawsuit.
Its those damn females and things. Just making a mess of things/s
Don’t forget about how he brought up the NRA, as if taking them on somehow equals atonement?
This bean spill happened for economic reasons.
Funny to mention the Gawker thing- I read that he (Weinstein) also just hired the lawyer that took down Gawker or maybe Theil’s lawyer. I can’t source that though, I don’t remember where I saw it.
Totally agree. His statement was insane. He’s like a liberal Trump. And LISA BLOOM, how could you?!?!?! He’s producing her next project so she’s giving him the last of her feminist cred. Gross but also what happens on the daily.
Ugh.
I was never a big fan of Gloria Allred, but even she is horrified that her daughter is doing this and said so.
I hope that Bloom becomes toxic after this and that no one wants to touch her with a ten-foot pole, let alone hire her as their attorney. I actually feel sorry for Gloria because clearly her daughter did not absorb her mother’s ethos.
He seems to be an unrepentant a-hole. I hope more women come forward. This has been an open secret for years. Also several actresses whose names you’d recognize played the game with him for movie roles. He’s a dirty old man. I can’t believe he’s all indignant like he actually has a reputation left to protect.
Right. The perpetrator cries victim hood. Everyone in LA knows this fat ass**** abuses his power and the term sexual harassment just doesn’t describe the kind of perpetrator this guy is. I would use the “R” word. Every time I saw Georgina on Project Runway All Stars, I was thinking “how did this refined lady end up with that giant, filthy, sack of laundry”.
Isn’t it amazing how he can sideline the experience of real victims, the actual women he harmed (in his statement he only said he “appreciated” their experience) to focus on himself? (He’s just a product of the 1960s when everyone felt this way about women…) but that’s the same kind of thinking that allowed his predation to continue for 30 years.
He is the second most thanked person in Oscars acceptance speeches (losing to Spielberg but beating out God) so, in his mind, he can do anything. Because he’s so good at his job.
How can he sue them after admitting to it in his statement? Was that not an admission of guilt?
Only to certain actions. His lawyer is claiming there are outright lies in the article. But I’m sure the Times vetted this extensively before they published. And the truth is an absolute defense.
Also, to win a defamation case, his lawyer would have to prove that the NYT published this information even though the editors/reporters knew it was false. Just having his lawyers/PR team say its false, isn’t enough, because they lie all the time to reporters.
He is counting on A-list actress feminists being too scared of him to speak up. So if they stay silent with what they know, you’ll know their real stance on women’s rights.
Going by the interview he gave to the New York Post yesterday, he isn’t sorry at all for what he did. He basically called Judd and McGowan liars without actually saying it. He also said the New York Times ran the story because they have a vendetta against him. He’s pathetic.
When are predators like this ever really sorry?
Vendetta? So he’s setting up a malice argument.
It wasn’t so much Hulk Hogan taking down Gawker as Peter Theil. And the NYT isn’t Gawker.
Yep. Gawker had a metric ton of issues that left it open to being brought down by someone like Thiel. The NYT, not so much.
Honestly, Gawker deserved it. Some of the writers were out of control and the editors were asleep at the wheel. Remember the “James Franco is a gay rapist” articles?? Turns out they were written by an ex-classmate of Franco’s annoyed by his fame and privilege and fact that he never acknowledged said writer. That is not journalism. Good riddance.
Gawker’s problem was that there was no news value in publishing that tape. Hogan was a washed up wrestling star having an affair – no crime was committed and there was no public value in exposing an intimate relationship between these two people.
That’s not the case here. Systemic cover up of sexual harassment and abuse by a major figure is, by all accounts, newsworthy. Major misstep by Weinstein’s people, as it will allow other media outlets to cover these allegations.
I don’t think I am making this up, but I think someone on Gawker’s famous comments (you always read the comments, right?) published AJ Daulerio’s (spelling?) deposition on what made a sex tape newsworthy, and where the line for what Gawker considered news would be drawn. Daulerio sarcastically replied, “maybe if it was a child,” and I think the Fforida jury lost it at that point. I believe that incident really did happen and AJ shot himself in the foot.
So the gawker case, to me, represented when it is appropriate to publish people’s private versus public information, plus Gawker just not knowing when to stop being snarky.
I do not think this Weinstein case is like that. But, I am not a lawyer, and am endlessly fascinated by how these cases get tried and debated.
@Tata: I am pretty sure that all of the comments were deleted after the whole thing went down. I believe you can still read the posts (? Haven’t checked in a while) but the comments, which were absolutely fantastic, are gone. I think I actually cried a little the day I realized that.
He’s dreaming if he thinks he can bring down The Times. Harvey’s glory days are over – he can’t buy his way out this time. Sweet karma.
Suing the Times? BRING IT. He opens himself up to being deposed, and all the “private” settlements become part of the record.
Unfortunately he won’t actually follow through with the suit, because that would be excellent.
Exactly.
Rose tweeted that her ex sold the movie rights to her rapist at one point.
Grindhouse being the movie sold to Weinstein by her ex Rodrigues.
http://gawker.com/5021626/robert-rodriguez-salvages-his-once-promising-career-by-relieving-rose-mcgowan-of-her-girlfriend-duties
Reading this article, knowing Weinstein blacklisted Rose explains a lot. Rodrigues career almost imploded after he broke his marriage to be with Rose, and studios wouldn’t touch him any more.
That tweet broke my heart.
The demise of the careers of Rose and ‘Whatever Happened to Gretchen Mol’ are making a lot of sense right now.
“Rodrigues career almost imploded after he broke his marriage to be with Rose, and studios wouldn’t touch him any more.”
Shame too because Rodrigues showed a lot of raw talent. Grindhouse one of my all-time favorites.
Rodrigues was almost too stupid to believe – his wife, the mother of his 100 children, was also his business partner and had built his production company from the ground. She used to turn a blind eye to all his wandering too. And so he destroyed all of that to be with Rose and then double crossed Rose by making a deal with her rapist, and I guess he thought she would stick around because his wife always did? Yeah, no.
It does make you wonder how he may have manipulated all the actresses who have had leads in his films or the ones he used and dismissed after promises of Oscar. What are they thinking today? It makes me so sad to think what some may have done out of desperation. Not everyone would’ve had the strength Ashley Judd did in that moment. Her story was amazing.
Judd comes out of the article as a woman of principle, intelligence and sang-froid.
I hope she gets a bit of a career renaissance, she deserves it.
Agree.
Has anyone else ever wondered about Gwyneth Paltrow? She won her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love which was a Weinstein movie, right? And I think she has called him Uncle Harvey. *shudder* I mean, was she protected because of her mom and dad, and being Spielberg’s goddaughter?
I am sure there are other actresses (Helena Bonham Carter comes to mind, maybe Helen Mirre ) but I wonder how many have ignored him, truly.
@Tata: Yes! Gwyneth was the first person I thought of when all this began to come out. I think it would be huge if she spoke out publicly against him, but I doubt she will.
She has nothing to lose. Her parents are considered Hollywood “royalty” and it isn’t as if she’s a struggling actress who needs to keep quiet in order to ensure she can continue to earn a living. At this point, she. Arely acts and her main career is GOOP.
I think it would be so important for someone like her to come out and share some of her stories about “Uncle Harvey” — which you know she has, but I predict she keeps her mouth shut just to keep out of the fray.
ugh, if gwyneth were to step up/ out with something related to this, like, support these women who have been victimized (i doubt she herself would have been assaulted by him; she’s ‘hollywood royalty’ and probably not a ‘safe bet’ for him to mess with or try to manipulate) – i’d actually regain a kernel of respect for her.
that said i seriously doubt she would, even if she did/ does know something- part of her perfect-princess image is in being above the fray. (see: ‘conscious uncoupling.) she’d probably be afraid it’d hurt her brand.
ironically, i bet in fact it could help her brand, if she made a strong stance against those who assault women.
Maybe someone with a legal background can answer this: If someone signed a NDA and got a settlement, could that person still be called to testify in court?
It’s a bit of an “it depends” situation. Most NDAs contain some exception for being called upon by a “court of law”. I would not recommend anyone under an NDA testify voluntarily but if they wanted to testify? Let’s just say I would let the other side know subtly that I would not fight a subpoena.
She’s wise not to make a public statement while under the NDA. I have a feeling if she is patient she will get her chance, with less chance of being sued personally.
If subpoenaed by a court, she can testify. It’s one of the exceptions to an NDA.
What everyone else said. She is likely waiting and its the smartest move. Why? Because the optics are bad when you try to silence a witness (and illegal) and its the exception. Should there be a court case she can sing like a canary.
That being said I cannot imagine carrying this around in silence for that long.
Could his lawsuit against the Times prompt testimony from someone like Rose?
I think NYT would try to avoid forcing victims to testify if possible
Sure, if he thinks suing the new York times will save him, let him believe it. His career is over. More and more stories are going to come out, and he’s going to sue them all but he won’t win. Anything he is associated with now, I will not support.
And trying to distract everything about with attacking the NRA? What?! First of all, shouldn’t you be attacking the NRA because, I don’t, back in 2012 a dude shot up first graders? Not because you got caught being a sexual predator!
I think this is more about him trying to intimidate any victims who might consider coming forward and not so much about him actually thinking he’s going to win a lawsuit against the NY Times.
He’s trying to send these women with less power and without a magazine and lawyers to back them up a message.
i think you nailed it.
I just googled Harvey Weinstein’s net worth and it is only 150 million dollars. That is not a lot of money. His fortune is going to be wiped out by lawyers’ fees and court costs. He will end up penniless.
You’re right, that’s not huge in Hollywoood terms. I wonder if his production company will financially back him? Or Georgina? Bloom will not come cheap.
He likely finances his studio. He also finances Georgina and rumor is these assaults are a large reason he bankrolled her fashion line. The money train IS harvey.
Hmm, thats interesting. that plus his networth gives me hope that maybe this will go through.
Been wondering how Georgina stands him…I guess she just like all the other women in his life: bought and paid for.
I really really want to hope you all are right and this public outing is his undoing but did that happen with Woody? Or Polanski? Or Affleck?
While he may not be made of money he certainly has a reputation (of winning many, many actors & actresses Oscars) to contend with and has to have a ton of industry connections. Will these people still support him? Sooooo want to believe no, but history would suggest he’ll be fine.
Looking at the photo of Harvey and Georgina is eerily like looking at one of Trump and Melania.
They are the two best examples of that saying, “When you marry for money, you earn every penny.”
::shudder::
I’ve heard in recent years the company’s gone downhill as well. I have a feeling this will not end well for him. Many people think he’s gonna be protected but if the rumors about Weinstein’s company are true then they might not have an incentive too. People are fine with bad behavior so long as your making bank but once the money is gone they suddenly find their “morals” again.
Yeah. Good luck putting the feathers back in this pillow, Harvey. Not gonna happen. NPR did a piece on it this morning. It’s pledge week at my station. Gonna donate a little extra so they can put it toward the inevitable legal defense fund. I just tried to find a link to it but it’s not up yet. Will post it beneath this one when/if I find it.
I’m sure NYT wouldn’t put out a story this huge without a team of lawyers looking over it every step of the way. While he can sue, I’m not sure it’ll go anywhere meaningful.
I’m glad this has all come out since it has been an open secret for so long but I’m so sad for the women who have had to endure the awfulness that is Weinstein and that it’s taken this long for him to be called out.
I want this bastard go down so bad. I wasn’t surprised that Harvey Weinstein was slimy, nasty predator who preys on young women barely out of there 20’s. Also I think he embezzled people and he is a downright thief. He should go to hell. NYT, stick to your guns.
U Bum, that’s the MO for men like you. Think about how many times Dotard Trump has threatened to sue for things that are completely true. When is the NYT going to do an expose on those 12 women? Off topic, I’m sorry, but I can’t think too hard about Harvey Weinstein after some of the things I’ve read on these boards.
This is probably a trial run for the NYT. If they win Harvey’s lawsuit, they can be reasonably sure their investigative process is solid and they can go after bigger fish with confidence…
HmmMMmmMm…. very interesting, indeed… I like where your head is.
A trial run for what? The New York Times is the New York Times. Supreme Court decision in The New York Times v the United States took down Nixon and the Pentagon after Nixon shut down the times and WAPO. Weinstein is just an ant to the Times; he has no clue what he is fighting.
Yeah and it makes you wonder why Trump wouldn’t sue all these news outlets for libel since they continue to print “fake news” about him. Only logical conclusion is that it’s really not fake news, and simply shit that Dotard doesn’t wanna hear.
And his wife gets to dress all of the girls in Marchesa for the red carpet. NYT needs to talk to the wife. There is a trade off somewhere.
I feel like sadly the industry powers to be will end up protecting him, because he’s not the only one who’s a predator: a huge amount of men in showbiz: actors, producers directors execs…all of them, as soon as they get a small amount of power they will use it to get pussy, that’s sadly the majority. Some of them will be harmless some of them won’t, but they all end up using that power to some extent, small or big they get, to get laid. So Harvey will pull of for sure a “If I go down you all come with me” type of BS. Is men’s mentality as predators and their use of power and women’s low standards of dignity and self-esteem what it needs to change. Specially in showbiz, of course that’s just a mirror of society.
so the story develops. . .
it was a great relief to see the NYT go on the record about these allegations. (finally! right?) power players are so rarely brought to task.
I’m surprised that he’s coming out now claiming defamation. His original statement read like an admission & you can’t have it both ways.
The fingerprints of “crisis management” were all over that statement: Lisa Bloom, the influence of the 60’s, therapy. . . It’s interesting to see what angles the big guns play when they’re backed into a corner.
I’m guessing the NYT has confidence in their legal position & they’re prepared for the mean death throws of this old ugly monster. In the court of public opinion, he’s done.
Two things strike me here:
1. When I look at that photo of Rose, i just think, god, abuse is a transformative fire. I see your strength & I hope this coverage brings you & other women peace.
& 2. One good thing about having someone as despicable as “grab them by the ****” Trump in the White House is that we can’t hide from the conversation now. A cleansing fire, indeed.
Am I the only one waiting for Trump to say look at the fake news NYT take down another good person with their fake news.
Or since he was a Clinton/Obama supporter will we get silence? Or a comment about crooked liberals?
Harvey is gross, I believe he is only suing about the HR complaint that he claims to have multiple witness to disprove, not the rest of the article. I think this will be interesting if it goes to trial.
LMAO. I hope the NYT insists on going to trial. Because that means discovery, and depositions, and a VERY public mess for Weinstein.
Exactly. He’s trying to save face here.
But if it moves forward, then that means depositions. And I have a feeling Harvey won’t want to go down that road.
Good point. I wonder how many of his victims would go on record?
Same. Rumor is that Harvey has been having financial issues for years, so I don’t think he can sustain a long, drawn-out legal battle for as long as he might think.
I know someone who used to be a forensic accountant at the NYT and would love to hear his thoughts on this.
Harvey has nowhere near the clout (or money) that he used to. It would be a different story if this was happening in, say, 1998, during his glory years, but he is far less influential than he thinks.
People keep saying the industry will protect him, but I thought that about Roger Ailes and he had political connection. Ailes was more or less responsible for George Bush winning the election and had worked with Nixon, and yet he was booted out. I thought O’Reilly would stay around as well. Weinstein is huge in Hollywood but I would say Roger Ailes was bigger, and if he can be taken down anyone can.
Maybe it’s being too optimistic but I really feel like times are changing. The more women are speaking out, and there has been some punishment. I really hope Weinstein will get what he deserves in the end. I hope this allows more, A-Lister stars to come forward. And I really hope it shakes up Hollywood executives, and they realize they have to start treating their actresses like human beings and not just f-dolls.
I can just see the editorial board of the TIMES grinning from ear to ear at the conference table.
This is nothing like Hulk Hogan v. Gawker. That was invasion of privacy issue. As much as I do not like the man, it was wrong and illegal to post a video of him having sex without his consent, and then refuse to take it down when his lawyers complained.
This would be more of a libel issue. It sounds like they spoke with several women who corroborated each other. The lawsuits and settlements would be a matter of record. I think this is grandstanding until they can threaten/pay off enough people to recant.
+1 illegally posting videos of someone having sex is not the same as reporting on victim/witness statements about sexual abuse.
There is an argument to be had about Thiel bankrolling Hulks case against Gawker, but the fact is Gawker stepped in it.
Macho posturing. Trying to deflect. The cat is out of the bag, he has to do something to minimize the impact, even if the lawsuit doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.
His open letter is Apologizing for Dummies transparent. Being contrite, deferential, saying all the right things. It’s so pandering, it’s embarrassing he was guided into this mewling and humiliating treatise. AND to bring up gun control, like we should be grateful he now can channel his free time into such a worthy cause. Even the textbook “donating proceeds” to women’s advocacy… he’s shameless.
The man that committed these acts of assault is still the man trying to get out of trouble now. He is still pathologically egotistical, blind, incapable of truly understanding what he did was wrong. He’s only sorry he got caught.
We could argue his behaviour was unsustainable, but he got away with it for a long time. He also wasn’t the first, nor will he be the last. Not sure how I feel about this. Cynical enough to say that we shouldn’t take this as a sea change, but maybe pleased that the spotlight will shine, if only briefly, on this issue. And hope the women who helped bring this to light will find much needed support and closure.
I hope he sues. What comes out in the discovery process would be very revealing. I think it would expose him so much more.
I was stunned & disappointed to see Lisa Bloom representing Weinstein. Her mother Gloria Allred’s statement broke sharply from Lisa’s choice:
“Lisa is my daughter and I love and respect her. She has her own law firm separate from mine. She makes her own independent decisions on who she will or will not represent, and I have no role in her decisions,” Allred said in the statement. ” Had I been asked by Mr. Weinstein to represent him, I would have declined, because I do not represent individuals accused of sex harassment. I only represent those who allege that they are victims of sexual harassment.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/gloria-allred-lisa-bloom-harvey-weinstain-statement
So victims can feel free to hire Momma…
I am so complete;ly disinterested in hearing the side of the story of any more privileged old, fat white guys who abuse women. I’m glad he is FINALLY getting roasted over the fire, and the whole lawsuit thing is just a signal to those of us who own a uterus (or used to in my case) that he really has no intention of giving up the kind of power and control that he is accustomed to . Screw him.
I remember Goopy saying that Weinstein was a gangster in how he conducts his business. She didn’t say it with an admiring tone. Makes me wonder what the details are of her relationship with Miramax since she was speaking in regard to her obtaining the role of of Viola in Shakespeare in Love.