Matt Damon helped Harvey Weinstein shut down a NYT exposé in 2004

Embed from Getty Images

The New York Times got a lot of credit last week for being “brave” enough to write about Harvey Weinstein’s history of alleged sexual abuse, misconduct, harassment and worse. Many have said “this is the worst-kept secret in Hollywood,” but until women come forward and tell their stories publicly, and until major outlets like the Times start reporting the stories openly, nothing will ever change. That’s how predators are enabled, when their behavior is only told in whispers, and never in mainstream media.

The NYT also ran a media-criticism piece over the weekend about how “media enablers” helped Weinstein over the years. Which is true – The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline, none of the trade papers would touch the story for fear of losing access, and fear of being sued into oblivion. But the NY Times’ media-criticism came across as rather smug in some quarters because… well, in 2004, the NY Times killed their own Weinstein exposé even though they had facts on their side. The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman was the NYT reporter on the Weinstein story back then, and she wrote about the situation – go here to read. Here’s the main crux of her story:

I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road. But I simply gagged when I read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the “media enablers” who kept this story from the public for decades. “Until now,” he puffed, “no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.” That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times.

In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there. I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.

As head of Miramax Italy in 2003 and 2004, Fabrizio Lombardo was paid $400,000 for less than a year of employment. He was on the payroll of Miramax and thus the Walt Disney Company, which had bought the indie studio in 1993. I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts. At the time, he denied that he was on the payroll to help Weinstein with favors. From the story: “Reached in Italy, Mr. Lombardo declined to comment on the circumstances of his leaving Miramax or Ricucci, saying they were legal matters being handled by lawyers. ‘I am very proud of what we achieved at Miramax here in Italy,’ he said of his work for the film company. ‘It cannot be that they hired me because I’m a friend.’”

I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off. The story I reported never ran.

After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted. I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall. But I had the facts, and this was the Times. Right? Wrong. The story was stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared?

The Times’ then-culture editor Jon Landman, now an editor-at-large for Bloomberg, thought the story was unimportant, asking me why it mattered. “He’s not a publicly elected official,” he told me. I explained, to no avail, that a public company would certainly have a problem with a procurer on the payroll for hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the time, Disney told me they had no idea Lombardo existed.

[From The Wrap]

Waxman goes on to talk about how much it hurt to think about the years since then, and how many women Weinstein had likely abused or harassed in that time. I tend to believe – until I see evidence to the contrary – that Weinstein could and did use his famous friends as cover without those friends knowing the whole story. Of course there were always whispers about Weinstein’s behavior, but as I said – until those whispers become actual news articles and lawsuits, many people will ignore the whispers. Maybe I’m being too gentle on Russell Crowe and Matt Damon, but isn’t it more likely that back then, they called the NYT to back up Weinstein without knowing what the actual NYT story was about?

As for the NYT’s smugness… yeah. But like Rebecca Traister talked about last week, the power Weinstein had 1997-2007 was absolutely enormous, and he doesn’t have the same kind of reach now. That’s why this story came out now instead of back then: because Weinstein no longer has the power and authority to shut it down. And maybe Matt Damon was no longer in the mood to call up the NYT to act as a character reference.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

153 Responses to “Matt Damon helped Harvey Weinstein shut down a NYT exposé in 2004”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Bluetop says:

    What is up with Matt Damon lately??? He’s breaking my heart :(

  2. Stella says:

    That picture with Renee… I wonder if her self imposed exile from Hollywood had anything to do with Harvey.

  3. Nicole says:

    Yea you’re being too generous.
    Again non-industry people have known the deal with these guy for years and years. So knowing that what do you think people inside hollywood know? Cmon this is not rocket science his casting couch behavior has been talked about for decades. Same behavior that has been talked about with countless others like Bryan Singer. I have no doubt that Crowe and Damon were covering for his buddy. The same Damon that went to bat to secure Affleck his oscar.
    Welcome to Hollywood.

  4. M says:

    Matt Damon was already a star with the Bourne franchise at the time. He was also an Oscar winner.
    He could have said no, he was already a rich man working with great directors at the time.
    He did, he didn’t care what was happening to all these women

  5. Eveil says:

    Well, I was already unimpressed with Matt Damon and the lot of them so this piece does nothing but to confirm those beliefs.

  6. The Original Mia says:

    Guess we know who really helped Casey last Oscar season. Damon had the experience from dealing with ol’ Harvey.

  7. Moon says:

    Matt Damon has milked his image as a father of daughters to market himself as a feminist, but a feminist does not make himself complicit with Harvey and Casey. Shame on you Matt.

  8. Miles says:

    Sorry but you’re being way too kind on Matt Damon. He knew. He didn’t care. Why would he care when his and friend Ben Affleck were reaping the benefits.

    But again this goes back to how women are the ones being held accountable. Imagine if it came out that Jennifer Lawrence had done this…

  9. K says:

    I will give the actors a small benefit of the doubt especially since it seems like the called to varify the Italian guy did know film. Except I’ve meant Weinstein and knew within seconds of a public interaction and then seeing him with starlets that every rumor was true. Horrible man. That being said the idea that the times killing a story when he was powerful making sense is the entire problem. When he had power is when they should have run the story. Doing it now is great but not as as impactful as when he had massive influence.

    • Jayna says:

      He called to verify that the guy on the payroll really was on set working on the movie he worked on, vouching for him.

      And, yeah, using company funds to hire prostitutes is a story, but it’s not like the use of prostitutes and studios is unheard of.

      • K says:

        I know it’s not unheard of that doesn’t change my point that to explain away the times killing his abuse of power story because of his power at the time isn’t ok. If we don’t go after powerful people when they are powerful we can’t stop abuses.

  10. Serene Wolf says:

    Behold, the real Matt Damon. 😈

  11. Ayra. says:

    Oh please, they knew exactly what they were doing. That attempt at defending them makes no sense. They covered for their “friend”, end of story.

    Everything is coming out fast, and I hope it takes down as many people as possible with it.
    You think some of the mega-A listers that worked with this guy had NO idea about him and his disgusting past? Because prepare to be shocked, women and men didn’t care and continued to work with him, this was not a secret. Take a look at Streep, who sounded defensive and blamed the media. Look at Woody Allen.

    Anyone that had a decent place in the film industry knew, American and European.
    Even people outside knew to some extent, so miss me with that “oh, she/he surely didn’t know” when some of the celebs come out.

    • Margo S. says:

      Well said Arya. Of course everyone knew! But the thing is, it’s not only him. He’s just the most powerful. People like him are all over the film industry “You want to get ahead lady? Blow me and my friend and you’ll get the job.” It’s terrible. And if you said no? Guess what. You didn’t get the gig. Not saying at all that every position in the industry is obtained through these measures, but some are. The point is is that non should be. The abuse of power needs to end.

  12. CharlieBouquet says:

    Ick. Hollywood holds glamour no more. One big semen crusted testicle boil.

  13. Talie says:

    Actors are the biggest gossips of all…so how they wouldn’t know seems mind-boggling. Whatever helps them sleep at night.

  14. Sisi says:

    Honest question, since I have no idea how it works:
    if you work with a production company like TWC – be it you are hired to be in one of their movies or a movie you are in is bought by them – do you sign a contract with the company? Have people signed away their right to openly talk about it?

    • Ann says:

      Yes, they would. Don’t slag off the prod cos./studio goes into contracts as standard. It also doesn’t last forever but throughout production, promo and release periods at least.

      An actor can also end up in a TWC production even without signing with them originally, beyond the distribution scenario. Say Actor A signs on with Production Company B for a movie that’s not funded. There’s a clause in there saying Actor A will also sign with other production companies brought in by Company B for this project for funding. In this situation, Actor A may be able to re-negotiate money or promo terms if Company B brings in Company C—this will often get reported as the signing because that’s when the project is funded and real—but in reality Actor A signed already and can’t leave unless Company B releases him or her, even if Actor A doesn’t want to work with Company C. This is done so projects don’t fall apart while prod cos. get funding together.

  15. Pam_L says:

    If both Crowe and Damon called her on Weinstein’s behalf, why is Matt Damon’s name the only one in the article headline? It reads to me like those ‘unknown discussions well above her head’ was the reason the story was killed rather than anything Crowe or Damon said to her.

    • Moon says:

      I think it’s because Matt Damon is well known as a liberal and a feminist, whereas Russell Crowe has kept a lower profile on that front and weren’t there allegations (proved?) of him being violent and abusive? Not to say that’s Russell Crowe isn’t complicit, but I think the topic here is Matt Damon’s hypocrisy.

      • Pam_L says:

        But what is he hypocritical about?? If you read the article above, the reporter states that Crowe and Damon called her to vouch for Fabrizio Lombardo’s knowledge of the film business, not to vouch for anything Weinstein was reported to have done. And that may have been all they were aware of at the time, that Lombardo’s legitimacy in the film industry was being questioned, not that she was researching an espose on Weinstein for sexual misconduct.

      • abby says:

        IA that based on the story Damon and Crowe appear to have only contacted her about the Lombardo’s legitimacy.

        Did they vouch for more regarding Harvey? She does not say.

        However, at this point in the current scandal it would serve Damon (and Crowe) well to make his stance clear. He played a role, however small or unwitting, in killing a previous NYT expose. Damon and so many other men who benefited from Harvey, whether they knew something or not, need to speak out.

        Silence is what allows this to continue (and I don’t mean from the victims but from bystanders/witnesses) who have their own power but refuse to use it.

        On a side note

        I was reading a story from a reporter who was once a waitress in one of Harvey’s restaurants and how he had a SOP for his “dates” with young actresses. The entire staff knew. It was a running “joke” about his “office tours.”
        The entire thing is disgusting.
        Now from her account you cannot know the nature of the encounters – assault, harassment, etc but from the power dynamic alone it sound like none of those women would have chosen to be there. http://nypost.com/2017/10/07/i-witnessed-weinsteins-sleaziness-up-close-ex-waitress/

      • magnoliarose says:

        I would take the Post with a large grain of salt. They are a conservative rag that is very much like the Daily Mail and exaggerate against liberals quite often. I have laughed out loud at some of their lying antics. Sometimes there is some truth, but they always try to make stories sound as salacious as possible.

  16. Nibbi says:

    ET TU MATT? …

    crap. i’ve always loved him.

    man. if i was closely associated w HW over the years, i’d be sweating bullets right now.

  17. MMC says:

    Yeah, if my mother, an executive assistant with a regional theater chain, knew of and experienced Weinstein’s vulgarity, hard to believe higher ups were oblivious.

  18. becoo says:

    Sadly, I find myself reflecting a lot lately on the quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It is sickening that the cover-up as made possible by enablers have allowed additional women to come to harm. I’m really curious as to whether MD or RC, being such recognizable and beloved faces in HW (and, ahem, white faces), will face any backlash whatsoever. How on earth will their PR people try to spin this?

    It’s sad that this story could have run so long ago, but nothing but props to the current team at NYTimes who helped it see the light of day. Brave expose can help prevent these and other crimes.

  19. JRenee says:

    More to come I’m sure, finally facts not hushed rumors. Hopefully this will help expose others.

  20. launicaangelina says:

    Matt is faux woke. I never bought his “woke” image.

  21. xena says:

    Isn’t the bigger scandal that he had the power to stop the times in 2004? I am for calling Matt Damon and Russel Crowe as well as other enablers out, but I cannot get my head round the fact that he had the power to stop the times – one of the most well known and most respected newspapers in the world. We are not talking about a tiny dependent village newspaper. And it took them 13 years to finally come up again – with the bigger story one could say but still, 13 years and he didn’t go into hiding after 2004.

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree that the NYT not publishing this is very bad. Makes you wonder what else they don’t publish like all the stuff about Dump that has been circling on twitter including his involvement with underage girls.

    • K says:

      I agree the times should stop with their victory lap when they sat on this story since 2004.

      Damon and Crowe calling to kill it is disgusting but the fact that the times didn’t just run it with their quotes is a disgrace for America’s paper of record.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That is part of the point I have been making. He was so powerful he could stop the NYT so you think a lowly actor is going to be brave enough to go on a crusade against that kind of power? It just isn’t realistic.

    • Pam_L says:

      I really think there is a misconception about what is written above. Please read it again. Crowe and Damon did not call the reporter to stop the story on Weinstein. They called the reporter to verify that Fabrizio Lombardo, the guy being accused of not having a real job in the film industry, was indeed a real deal in the film industry. They did not call to kill the story . It was those calls to people about the reporter’s head that killed the story, and that wasn’t Crowe or Damon.

      • I Choose Me says:

        I was starting to doubt my own reading comprehension. So many people who’ve misread what the article actually says.

        I’m no Matt Damon fan. I’ve soured on him since that incident with Effy and other tone deaf remarks he’s made, plus his habit of name dropping irks me, but if we’re gonna drag him let’s do it for things he’s actually said and done and not on speculation on what he might’ve known. Also the article at that point was about paid escorts. We don’t know if Damon and or Russell even knew if that’s what the story was about.

        I’m saving all my vitriol for Harvey Weinstein, whom I’d love to see in handcuffs and frogmarched to jail.

  22. jugil1 says:

    I cancelled Damon after the Effie Brown debacle. He’s a fraud.

  23. Sarah_sr says:

    Went to the TheWrap comments section.Worst mistake of the day. It’s almost as toxic as dailyfail comment section. Has it always been like this?

    As for Damon, I used to like him and thought he deserved better friends than the ones he had. But the old adage is true – a man is known by the company he keeps. He’s as bad as his besties. He just used to be more subtle.

  24. Merritt says:

    I’m not surprised Matt Damon would do that. Especially after how he shut down the stories about Casey Affleck. Damon is a horrible person. The way he whitesplained to Effie Brown should have been a red flag to more people.

  25. marissa says:

    You aren’t going to find people in Hollywood who haven’t worked with Weinstein or had dealings with him. I hope this doesn’t turn into anyone who ever was in the same room with him getting attacked.

    • Anon33 says:

      Oh please with that trumpism. The article explicitly states that Matt specifically vouched for him. No one is “attacking” Matt by telling the truth.

    • PPP says:

      Your comment on the Meryl article is as follows:

      “I don’t believe for one second that Meryl didn’t know anything. In all her years she never heard from one woman who had been so much as propositioned? Now we know that she’s a liar. Should have just stayed silent.”

      So you’re more willing to hold her accountable, though she had nothing to do with this, than Matt Damon, who played an active part. Interesting.

  26. perplexed says:

    I think it might be more “understandable” if Damon kept silent (like most people do, because they might not want to get involved), but I don’t why he would actively intervene to kill the story. The latter is quite strange, even if he’s a pretend feminist.

  27. Lenn says:

    I heard stories about so called good boy Matt Damon as well. When they were filming Oceans Twelve here in Amsterdam he enjoyed the good life, let’s just say.

  28. Mannori says:

    “Maybe I’m being too gentle on Russell Crowe and Matt Damon, but isn’t it more likely that back then, they called the NYT to back up Weinstein without knowing what the actual NYT story was about?”
    1) Yes, you’re being too gentle. Way too gentle.
    2) They knew back then. They knew even more than what the report had. They all knew, and know.

  29. Marina says:

    I cannot really blame Matt Damon or anyone without more evidence right away. Firstly, it was 13 years ago, the may have not know exactly what the expose was about. Do not tell me that all of you are so amazingly moral that you never covered for one of your friends questionable acts, especially when that person told you only their side of the story. I did. And I regret it.

    Second, it is hard sometimes to believe that a friend, a person you are close whit may be such a monster. Especially when it was not your own experience. This does not cancel the disgusting behavior and the responsibility but let’s not pretend famous people are not human and they do not make every day mistakes and do not have bad judgement.

    When someone you know “so well: turns this way that is a great existential crisis in the sense that you start to question yourself and your own goodness. This is not an excuse and cannot compare with the horror those women went trough, but it is a valid statement and a reason for their actions and I will judge on their behavior from now on and how they handle this situation.

    • perplexed says:

      If Damon had stayed silent that would have made some sense. But he directly called up the NYT times. If I don’t know what a story is about I would just stay out of the fray, not vouch for someone.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Well, yes and no. Let’s be honest. They all knew. Don’t tell me H’wood is less gossip-y than any other industry. They’re not. In my firm, it’s insane and I’ve heard worse from friends and family. People gossip, and it’s incredibly rare that you work in a company/industry for years and don’t know the basic gossip “facts”.

      It’s different if you’re talking about a smaller circle, i.e. family. For some reason, it’s easier to not see things when they are happening right in front of you or maybe it’s just that people know to hide it in these situations. I can honestly say I’ve never covered for anyone who did something remotely as disgusting and criminal as this pig. And I wouldn’t. Who the hell wants to be friends with people like that? I’ve ended friendships because people were unrepentant about cheating and continued to treat their partners like dirt. I don’t want that sh*t and drama in my life.

    • magnoliarose says:

      If anyone vouches for him now then I will have an issue because it is public and can’t be denied or explained away or ignored.

  30. PrettyPuppy says:

    Way too kind to Matt Damon, he like everyone else in Hollywood knew and did nothing. None of them did sh-t and I’m giving none of them the benefit of the doubt.
    And god only knows what Matt Damon himself demands women do behind the scenes to get roles from in his movies. He has a squicky clean image but I suspect he’s just better at hiding his predatory ways. If you hang around sexual predators like Weinstein and Casey Affleck most likely you’re one as well.

  31. Olive says:

    we already knew Damon was trash.

  32. Amelie says:

    In the age of social media it is much harder to kill this kind of story and Harvey doesn’t appear to be social media savvy unlike his colleague Donald Trump who has fully embraced Twitter. Twitter/Facebook/Snapchat didn’t exist back then in late 90s-early 2000s or were simply beginning to emerge (I got my FB account in 2006). Obviously in a month the furor of this story will have died down but social media really does make a huge impact when scandals like this come to light.

  33. Svea says:

    I never trusted Damon’s good-guy grin.

  34. hu says:

    I hope Damon carrer die, there you go, I say it

  35. Bug says:

    And don’t forget Damon’s racist bullshit in the last Project Greenlight. Abhorrent.

  36. Tan says:

    He runs with the asshole affleck boys
    Why is it hard to believe what he does?
    Fathers of daughters can rape another woman.

    Also Harvey probably held Matt by his balls then

  37. M says:

    Okay well if Meryl is claiming that she didn’t know and she’s been A list for decades, then as far as I can see that opens the door for everyone else to claim that they also had no idea, and that their experience with HW was different.

  38. What's Inside says:

    They all play the Hollywood game.

  39. minx says:

    I’ve always thought of Damon as a very average actor with very average looks. He lucked into his fame and is not going to rock the boat.

    • kibbles says:

      THIS. I remember in the late 90s and early 2000s, so many of my friends swooned over Damon. Especially smart liberal women because he had Harvard cred, was from Boston, and stood up for liberal causes. I never thought he was good looking for an actor, even when he was young. He looks okay for a normal guy, but for an actor, he is short and his face isn’t striking in any way. Yes, he and Affleck lucked into this business, in part because of Weinstein. They would never go against him, especially 15-20 years ago. Maybe now that they don’t need him anymore.

  40. Zuzus Girl says:

    Damon has always been creepy to me. He just hides it better. He also showed who he is on the Greenlight project.

  41. RBC says:

    I somehow think that Harvey is going to drag quite a few people down with him. You don’t become such a major power player without knowing where the bodies are buried.

  42. Cleo says:

    Using your celebrity muscle to squash an piece of investigative journalism in the New York Times is a very big deal.

  43. Nora says:

    I’ve always disliked Damon, major a**hole, horrible actor, pretty ugly too.

  44. Tess says:

    Well psychologically you can be around a person that’s good to you and maybe good to other people in front of you, and when they do things that show a red flag, the natural tendency is to excuse it. And in the case of people who knew what Jerry Sandusky was doing, it’s self preservation kicking in, and that’s human nature. No I must’ve heard wrong, no I couldn’t have seen/heard what I thought I did, he’s been nice to x person in the past this must be an off day for him, no he supports women and feminism I must be interpreting it the wrong way, no h can’t be that wa he’s helped me out so much when no one else did.
    We all think we’d be the big hero to step up and say something but time and again real life examples show that psychologically society isn’t really capable of going against the grain like that.

    • Harla says:

      This x’s 1,000,000. Hell, a president was elected because so many people choose to only see what they want to see, only believe what works for them.

    • PPP says:

      Yeah, but men actively enabling this behavior is such a major part of this toxic culture. It needs to be called out, Damon and Crowe need to be shamed, there need to be consequences, otherwise the toxic culture just continues.

      • Tess says:

        i agree men need to be called out for enabling, but I’m not entirely sure this is enabling. A better example of enabling is the Billy Bush tape, going along, egging it on, chortling. But how can you enable something you just don’t see? It’s just not registering in their brains as harassment, abuse, misogyny, etc and THATS what needs to change. Listening to that little red flag when it goes up instead of brushing it away because we can’t fathom this hugely powerful nice man can actually be an abuser. That requires your whole life view changing and realistically how many of us are capable of that? Even YOUR reply shows someone set in their ways and not easily accepting that others can be flawed and not what we want them to be.

    • Ladidah says:

      @Tess, what you said.

      I had a lecherous, sexually harassing boss, and it depressed me to no end when I told people about my experience with him, yet they refused to condemn the boss because, “Well, he has helped so-and-so (a lady) a lot,” and “maybe he was just trying to help you too.” f*ck these people, he had a history, lawsuits had been settled, and they all knew the gossip. I was disappointed no one helped me take a stand, though why would they,they had nothing to gain from it.

  45. A says:

    Even if Matt Damon “didn’t know” about the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, no one is really thinking a lot about why. Matt Damon could afford to not know. He could afford to tune out the background noise. He had no horse in this race. He could afford to not think about it, to dismiss the allegations against Weinstein because “he’s such a nice guy!” Women couldn’t afford that luxury of being blind to Harvey Weinstein’s excesses because that would be career ending for them. Matt Damon and people like Matt Damon could.

    And even beyond that, if men weren’t “aware” of the whispers about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour, or the extent or depth of it, think about why they had the luxury of not knowing. That has everything to do with the fact that they are men. They have the luxury of not believing women who might have told them. They have the luxury of thinking “oh it can’t be so bad” when they hear the rumours. Even if Matt Damon didn’t know (and it’s a huge “if”) the reasoning behind WHY he didn’t know is just as horrifying. It shows how men don’t give much credence or weight to the experiences of women.

    Moreover, this is how abusers operate. They show different parts of themselves to different people. Many abusers are charming, kind and friendly to a lot of different people while being cruel to others. They know how to manipulate, and we’ve seen from the women who have spoken up about Harvey Weinstein that this is a man who knew how to manipulate BIG time.

    • magnoliarose says:

      @ A You are so right.

      I know it is not the most honorable behavior not to be a whistleblower, but I know how manipulative these kinds of people are. They are in constant manipulation mode and steps ahead of anyone else because what they do all damn day is plot their moves and set traps. They cover their bases before anyone else even knows that the bases even exist. They know what to do to who and what the right things to say are at every given moment.
      His schlubby cretin behavior would actually be a cover for some people because they can mistake it for lacking cunning or discipline. He did it on purpose and enjoyed other people’s disgust.
      That is why I keep saying the blame lies with Harvey.
      One of his tactics is a classic. Build the reputation as being a hard ass and be a pain in the butt to some people and then turn around and successfully champion them to win awards. Then the next time you work with them grumble and then pretend to be humble and give them the perception that you are 100 percent behind them and grant them a bigger budget. Be there for them and offer them your ear 24 hours a day.

      At times, you commiserate and do things to show them how much you believe in them and even create a common enemy. That is always a successful bonding tactic. Surround yourself with righteous causes and cultivate important friends outside of the industry because that truly impresses people, shows you have pull in other areas. Show someone you want to get close to how powerful you are by procuring something they couldn’t and offhandedly give it to them. He funds his wife’s fashion follies, and she gets to pretend she is talented.

      On and on they get people invested in them, so they would be very reluctant to turn on him because Harvey got that doctor to see my mother who was ill or Harvey made a deal for the house we wanted or Harvey was there for me when no one else would touch me for a project. Underneath it all he is a good guy, he would make sure to make some people believe that. They read people and give them what they don’t even know they want and play on their weaknesses.

      Most people are simply living life, but people like him are scheming and have 30 different faces they use to get what they want. And private investigators are always handy to get some good blackmail material as a backup plan.

      • I Choose Me says:

        Great assessment. I appreciate the reasonableness and astuteness of your comments all over these threads. You seem to have a good grasp of human psychology and understand how complicated we all are.

        With you all the way on your reiteration that the blame lies with Harvey.

  46. Keira says:

    Do you think anyone other than his lawyers are taking his calls? Is he feeling isolated and shunned or not really and it’s all good just on the down low for awhile? I’m truly curious about that.

  47. Oozam says:

    I think people can be forgiven for a lot if they’re not falsely presenting themselves as being morally superior or a decent person. People will judge you by the standard you claim to represent. That’s why I find Damon an insufferable fraud. Everything he presents is a lie so how can you believe anything from someone like that? If there were bodies found under his house I wouldn’t be surprised. He’s a compulsive liar and manipulater. Far more so than most in Hollywood.

  48. tuxedo2201 says:

    I think Damon and Crowe were using Lombardo services as well and Weinstein jumped at the opportunity.

  49. Island_girl says:

    Ever since Damon told President Obama to g
    “Grow some balls” I was done with him.

  50. Flipper says:

    Damon protected Weinstein and allowed him to continue his predatory behavior on young girls. Damon has daughters of his own. I guess it’s ok to condone such behavior as long as it is not your own kids. Right?

  51. Cakes says:

    I hope the creeps who abused the Coreys are shaking in their boots.

  52. serena says:

    There sure is a bro-posse in Hollywood and it needs to stop! Men protecting men, blind of their misconduts.. this is an old story. I think, maybe Damon and Crowe didn’t fully know but could have imagined some of it, so I don’t condone them (or any other man who turned a blind eye).

  53. Ana says:

    Come on. Proof of Waxman’s unethical tactics again. If you read the article, it says Damon and Crowe called her to vouch for the italian Miramax guy, who was being accused of just being there to provide escorts for Weinstein (which is different from rape and harassment, by the way). In the context mentioned, it means they just called to tell her he indeed did some movie work and wasn’t just a glorified pimp.

    That’s quite different than saying they blocked an exposé on Weinstein. Until she releases the whole story with proof, you’re all just jumping on the moral bashing with only prejudice on your side.

  54. Flem says:

    Miramax and Weinstein got Good Will Hunting produced. Which started both Damon and Affleck’s career.