Bring on the Protesters! Harvey Weinstein Gets a Win in Court

Bring on the Protesters! Harvey Weinstein Gets a Win in Court October 11, 2018

The #MeToo movement felt they’d been dealt a blow by the patriarchy, after failing to stop Judge Brett Kavanaugh from advancing to the Supreme Court, to be named Justice Kavanaugh.

For those just waking from a coma, Kavanaugh was Clarence Thomas’ed, with several women presenting vague, shifty claims about sexual misconduct as a high school and college kid.

There were hearings, with his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford being allowed hours to tell the Senate Judiciary that she didn’t remember a thing about what happened, other than she was sure Brett Kavanaugh was the one that held her down and felt her up at a high school party.

The FBI investigated, and found nothing that held up to scrutiny, so Kavanaugh was confirmed.

My position from the beginning was that we can’t dig back decades to find indiscretions from childhood and allow those things to count against who people are today.

There’s a reason childhood offenders have their records sealed.

That being said, there also wasn’t enough hard evidence to ruin the man or his family’s life over. He wasn’t who I would have picked for the Supreme Court. He was a disappointment, actually, but truth and justice must apply to all, or it applies to none.

I’ll also say the screeching feminists, insisting that if he was born male, that’s all that should be required to convict him, ruin him, label him as a “rapist,” did a lot to turn the tide in favor of Republicans.

In other words, if that’s what liberals and their sub-genre political groups think our society should be, then fighting back is required, simply to maintain fairness and sanity.

Great work, ladies. The GOP should send you all a fruit basket or something.

So with that being said, today’s news should really have the #MeToo’ers in a state of mourning.

Harvey Weinstein, the monstrous film producer who used his power and prestige in Hollywood to pray on multiple women in the industry just got a break in court, today.

It was a Ronan Farrow blockbuster that outed Weinstein and his crimes, and catapulted Farrow to superstar journalist status – a position he threatened to torpedo by jumping on the Kavanaugh bandwagon and running with laughably flimsy stories, just to try and keep on top of that #MeToo wave he’d created.

In today’s news, Variety is reporting that the district attorney of Manhattan has dropped one of the six criminal charges against Weinstein, due to new evidence that disputes the testimony of one of his three accusers.

During a court hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court on Thursday, Judge James Burke granted the defense request to dismiss the count related to allegations by Lucia Evans. The aspiring actor first told her story to the New Yorker last October, saying Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex during a daytime meeting at his Tribeca office in 2004.

According to court documents made public after Thursday’s hearing, Evans is alleged to have offered conflicting accounts about her encounter with Weinstein. Prosecutors are also accused to failing to disclose to the defense a witness who could also cast doubt on Evans’ claims, among other materials.

You know, I’m not going to call this woman a liar, based on this, anymore than I was willing to call Christine Blasey Ford a liar, but you’ve got to have proof when you accuse someone of doing the kinds of things these ladies have claimed.

The prosecutors in the Weinstein case are fine with losing that one, given that they feel the evidence and testimony of the remaining two women is enough to support their case against the disgraced Hollywood bigwig.

Prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon voiced the obvious.

“We are moving full-steam ahead,” Illuzi-Orbon told the judge. She said the investigation into Weinstein’s actions continues as the D.A.’s office works to determine if additional charges can be brought against Weinstein.

As you should expect, Weinstein’s defense are all over this. His attorney, Ben Brafman is now prepared to cast doubt on the NYPD’s lead detective in the case.

What’s more, he’s questioning if Evans committed perjury in her grand jury testimony, and skewered the New Yorker for using Evans as one of the key sources for the October 2017 piece that outed Weinstein’s abuses.

“It appears to me some of the most vocal, outspoken critics of Mr. Weinstein who have put their complaints into the media were never properly vetted,” Brafman said.

Brafman indicated that questions about Evans’ account may have come to light as part of the New Yorker’s fact-checking process on bombshell exposes published last year by investigative reporter Ronan Farrow. He also took aim at the five other remaining counts against Weinstein, as alleged by former production assistant Mimi Haleyi and an unnamed woman accusing Weinstein of rape in 2013. Weinstein has steadfastly maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual.

“We will be able to demonstrate he did not commit any of the other crimes,” Brafman said.

There were a lot of women who came forward with horror stories about Weinstein. There were too many, with accounts that were far too familiar to have all been lies.

The next hearing in Weinstein’s case is set for December 20. His defense has until November 2 to file whatever additional motions they have, in regards to dismissal.

So where are the screaming, shrieking crowds of feminists? Where are the signs proclaiming, “Believe Victims”?

There was a crowd for this hearing, but it was mainly reporters. There were very few protesters. Perhaps they’re simply recovering, recharging their batteries, before taking to the streets for another battle against the patriarchy?

Or maybe they’re really just frauds and political puppets, who only truly care about sexual abuses (real or perceived), as far as it can be used to score a political victory.

We’ll see.

 

 

"Beyond that, Trump might have personal interests/bribes/debts at stake. In other politicians this would be ..."

Congress Splits With President Trump Over ..."
"This is a textbook example of Trump's utter inability to be presidential. All he had ..."

The Details of Jamal Khashoggi’s Disappearance ..."
"Ya gotta love Trump calling Michael Cohen a liar, since lying FOR Trump was Cohen's ..."

Former Trump “Fixer,” Michael Cohen, Meets ..."
"Maybe we should be asking if the Trump administration approved the murder of Khashoggi in ..."

Congress Splits With President Trump Over ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • IllinoisPatriot

    It’s all political until people start to realize that it’s the character of the individual judges and jurors that count.

    There is no set date or number of years before which accusations should “not count” for purposes of prosecution. What counts is the quality of the evidence and the patterns of behavior of the defendant(s) both as indiscrete youths AND as adults. The morals and ethics learned as a teenager are usually not abandoned later in life (short of a sincere makeover such as only Christ can make in a person or life-threatening / life-altering events), so patterns of behavior (such as excessive drinking with no AA program attendance and 25-year chip or history of drug abuse with certification of release from rehabilitation or history of cross-dessing / liberal voting without subsequent mental-health certification) should be used to confirm character. We can tolerate liberal – even socially liberal – judges and jurors trying cases and hearing evidence. What we don’t need is tribalism, partisanship or ideological crusaders such as feminists, race-baiters (on the left or the [alt-]right). The job of the judge and jury is to INTERPRET the laws and specific cases in the context of the US Constitution (as written and amended and as supplemented by US law – not to make law based on popular opinion or ideological beliefs of the jurors or judges.

    Trump’s attacks on the US courts and the Kavanaugh circus have only degraded the public trust in our court systems and in our government as a whole to create fair laws and to fairly enforce those that exist.

    We may be at a point where no matter what the outcome of court cases, there will be protests and charges of injustice based on political tribalism and the hatred and divisions initiated by the Obama’s weaponization of the US Courts, the IRS, and DOJ and Trump’s subsequent attacks on the credibility of the Courts, the Federal bureaucracy in general and the DOJ and law-enforcement officers more generally.

    Between the Democrat weaponization of government and Trump’s subsequent increase in that trend while turning the “government weapon” against liberal institutions, I fear we may be at a tipping point where open violence and bloodshed may break out between the far-left and the far-right with the vast majority of citizens caught in the cross-fire.