Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

And here's a freely available video of Ben 'progressive' Affleck groping a female reporter during an interview:

Meanwhile, the Obama's and Hillary Clinton have finally come out after 5 days and condemned Weinstein.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/business/media/disney-hillary-clinton-and-the-obamas-condemn-weinstein.html

Now we're getting to the big story here. Obama and Hillary had the entire might of the U.S. intelligence agencies at their disposal up until early 2017, and yet they still happily took money from Weinstein. This seems to sum up Hillary Clinton's entire philosophy to life. Do whatever it takes to get the money.

And it raises some deeply disturbing questions about the actions of then President Barack Obama, and the intern position that his 17 year old daughter Malia served with Harvey Weinstein.

We can take it for granted that the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service thoroughly vetted the position that the first daughter would be working in, and the entire political elite knew and warned President Obama that he would be sending his daughter to work with a known pervert and sexually depraved rapist.

Did...did Obama pimp his daughter for political favours with Weinstein's media mob? Is that what we are looking at here? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Lindsay Lohan is on social media defending Weinstein.

She worked with him and he never did anything to her.

Even Harvey Weinstein has his limits...

valoren

Spon Farmer wrote: »

What I don't understand in these types of situations are why people who can speak out about a problem don't until the story gets out.

A few of the actresses who say Weinstein behaved liked this are seem to me to be in position where they could have this to the public eye sooner.

Jolie and Paltrow are surely secure enough in their careers that they could spoken about this years ago. Why sit back and allow him to do it to other women? Even though Chastain is a relative newcomer she is in demand enough that she doesn't to rely on one movie studio.

Or was Weinstein simply that powerful that they felt it was a battle they couldn't win?

I can't pretend to imagine what it is like to be in a situation like these women have been because of Weinstein or what it is like to deal with a person like him but likewise I don't understand keeping silent.

It's the fear of punishment I guess that prevents it in two guises. One for aspiring performers and one for established performers.

For those aspiring, punishment would be in becoming ostracized or getting a reputation for being 'difficult to work with', a career ending charge. The threat of never working in this town again was very real.

For those who were established, then I guess the punishment was financial as well as well as the above i.e. you'd have a hefty multi-million dollar law suit on your hands for slander, defamation if you exposed such people. They would be in the position to destroy you financially.

I think back to the catholic church here in Ireland and it's own abuse of power. If you knew for sure that a priest or indeed a bishop (the producers in this analogy) were abusing children and being the conscientious person you are you decided to speak out, it wouldn't take long for you to be destroyed, ostracized, castigated and for your reputation to be destroyed. When you establish an untouchable framework like the RCC and the power hierarchy in Hollywood like that then it fosters such abuse and suffocates the ability to expose it.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Wonder where Quentin Tarantino is in all this? Remarkably silent. Ditto for others who made bank with oul Harvey.

Speilberg didnt want to address it either.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/steven-spielberg-refuses-harvey-weinstein-talk-spielberg-premiere-1201884429/

wingbacknr5

This kind of stuff is alluded to in the novel "The Godfather" which was written in 1969 and set in the 40s and 50s.

A film producer called Jack Woltz is shown as sexually exploiting young girls in the industry.

Presumably the author Mario Puzo had reason for referencing such behaviour and it wasn't purely developed from his imagination.

I would imagine it is rife in Hollywood and has been for a very long time.

SmallTeapot

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

And here's a freely available video of Ben 'progressive' Affleck groping a female reporter during an interview:

I actually couldn't watch more than first 30 seconds of that video....made me very uneasy..... shocking :eek: :eek:

optogirl

SmallTeapot wrote: »

I actually couldn't watch more than first 30 seconds of that video....made me very uneasy..... shocking :eek: :eek:

Christ - what a creep

brevity

Charlize Theron posted this on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/BaFEhnuAm5S/

Penn

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Obama and Hillary had the entire might of the U.S. intelligence agencies at their disposal up until early 2017, and yet they still happily took money from Weinstein. This seems to sum up Hillary Clinton's entire philosophy to life. Do whatever it takes to get the money.

Yeah, I can't believe that with the entire might of the US intelligence agencies at their disposal while still engaged in conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere they never once said "Maybe you should check up on this movie producer..."

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

And it raises some deeply disturbing questions about the actions of then President Barack Obama, and the intern position that his 17 year old daughter Malia served with Harvey Weinstein.

She had Secret Service protection and do you really think as depraved as Weinstein's actions are, he'd try to assault the President's daughter?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

We can take it for granted that the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service thoroughly vetted the position that the first daughter would be working in, and the entire political elite knew and warned President Obama that he would be sending his daughter to work with a known pervert and sexually depraved rapist.

Did...did Obama pimp his daughter for political favours with Weinstein's media mob? Is that what we are looking at here? :eek: :eek: :eek:

I think that's what you're looking at. In fact, I'd say it's what you're trying your damnedest to look at. Why? I don't know. But you're doing some reaching that even Stretch Armstrong would look at with disbelief.

dogbert27

brevity wrote: »

Who knows really. I'd wager he had dirt on them.

This should all be about Weinstein but he seems to be getting away with it lightly in the last few days as the press is more focused on finding other celebrities who should have known and apparently should have easily spoken out about it as soon as they heard the alleged rumours.

Rose McGowan to me is being extremely unfair calling out particular celebrities when she knows the power that Weinstein had to make or break a career. Case in point McGowan accepting a settlement from Weinstein with an agreement not to speak about it.

How does she know or not know that Weinstein has also done similar to other actors and actresses over the years and they couldn't speak out publicly until now, now that it's all out in the open and there won't be any legal or professional repercussions for them.

And something like this cannot just be one studio exec, there must be more out there as people refer to the "casting couch". It's not as easy to say speak out against one exec from a company as others will easily give you a job. Again Rose McGowan has found that out the hard way.

Goat the dote

optogirl wrote: »

Christ - what a creep

Painful to watch, he seems drunk or drugged or am I just clutching at straws that someone couldn’t really be such a sleaze?

Spon Farmer

Wibbs wrote: »

He may be genuine, he may be not, but his and other "stars" very career depends a lot on self serving PR. I also find it extremely dubious he didn't know more. His close friend in the biz Brad Pitt went after Harvey when he made a play for his then girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow(Harvey also made a play for another GF of his, Jolie). Weinstein gave Clooney his first real film roles and they hung out a lot and he would have known many of the women players in this play.

You are contradicting yourself here. He might be genuine but has to have known?

It is entirely possible that people in the business don't know every dirty secret. Clooney isn't exactly Weinstein's type so he was never in the situation and hanging out doesn't make you friends or mean they really know each other. Even if Clooney knew any of the women there is is no reason to believe they'd confide in him.

If a friend of yours was accused of sexual assault would you consider it reasonable for people to think you must have known he did it?

I've only read that Pitt confronted Weinstein about Paltrow, not about Jolie, but I assumed that likely. That doesn't mean Pitt must have known Weinstein was always at it. Movie stars can be naive too.

Ben Affleck apparently told Weinstein to keep his hands of Rose McGowan. She told Affleck it happened again. She has now claimed Affleck was pretending he knew nothing of it at all but it seems clear to me that Affleck's statement was about not knowing that the extent of the behaviour.

partyguinness

I have to admit, I never heard of Harvey Weinstein up to a few days ago.

ps. I am not a movie buff.

Spon Farmer

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

And here's a freely available video of Ben 'progressive' Affleck groping a female reporter during an interview:

I don't think what is happening in that video is quite the same thing as Weinstein's behaviour.

It is cringe worthy because it is stupid but is Affleck in a position of power here or having that woman do something against her will?

Goat the dote

Goat the dote wrote: »

Painful to watch, he seems drunk or drugged or am I just clutching at straws that someone couldn’t really be such a sleaze?

He's a "recovering alcoholic". Also he's among the most pontificating people I've ever seen.

partyguinness

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Lindsay Lohan is on social media defending Weinstein.

She worked with him and he never did anything to her.

He prefers a challenge...

allym

That affleck video is horrible. "They'd like it better if you did it topless". Poor woman's just trying to do her job

retro:electro

Spon Farmer wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself here. He might be genuine but has to have known?

It is entirely possible that people in the business don't know every dirty secret. Clooney isn't exactly Weinstein's type so he was never in the situation and hanging out doesn't make you friends or mean they really know each other. Even if Clooney knew any of the women there is is no reason to believe they'd confide in him.

If a friend of yours was accused of sexual assault would you consider it reasonable for people to think you must have known he did it?

I've only read that Pitt confronted Weinstein about Paltrow, not about Jolie, but I assumed that likely. That doesn't mean Pitt must have known Weinstein was always at it. Movie stars can be naive too.

Ben Affleck apparently told Weinstein to keep his hands of Rose McGowan. She told Affleck it happened again. She has now claimed Affleck was pretending he knew nothing of it at all but it seems clear to me that Affleck's statement was about not knowing that the extent of the behaviour.

Asking whether or not you'd know if your friend was an abuser is completely different to the systemic culture of abuse that had dominance in the industry you work in. Clooney's statement was very wishy washy. "I knew but I didn't know", kind of thing. Bull. "Dirty Harvey" he said they used to call him. I'm not buying he didn't know for a second. As Wibbs said earlier he is industry friends with those names who are at the centre of this right now.
Clooney was very careful to say he'd never personally seen any of it- but that he'd heard "rumours".

optogirl

Now that Matt Damon has daughters he realises predatory behaviour is wrong .... all this 'as the father of daughters' shi*e grinds my gears. Oh, now that YOUR daughters might be at risk it's important. Other women just not as valuable eh?

Spon Farmer

valoren wrote: »

It's the fear of punishment I guess that prevents it in two guises. One for aspiring performers and one for established performers.

For those aspiring, punishment would be in becoming ostracized or getting a reputation for being 'difficult to work with', a career ending charge. The threat of never working in this town again was very real.

For those who were established, then I guess the punishment was financial as well as well as the above i.e. you'd have a hefty multi-million dollar law suit on your hands for slander, defamation if you exposed such people. They would be in the position to destroy you financially.

I think back to the catholic church here in Ireland and it's own abuse of power. If you knew for sure that a priest or indeed a bishop (the producers in this analogy) were abusing children and being the conscientious person you are you decided to speak out, it wouldn't take long for you to be destroyed, ostracized, castigated and for your reputation to be destroyed. When you establish an untouchable framework like the RCC and the power hierarchy in Hollywood like that then it fosters such abuse and suffocates the ability to expose it.

To be honest, I hadn't even considered the similarity because he was just one man, no matter how many connections he had, but you are right and I was not looking at this from the correct angle.

I viewed Jolie, for example, as untouchable in this situation because she is veteran of Hollywood and seems well able to hold her own with as much or more power than Weinstein. However, this is simply because she is a face of Hollywood so I was being naive there.

And I forgot that Hollywood is just like the rest of the world. A woman makes an accusation like these and even if she succeeds in revealing the truth, there will always be those who gossip that she was more than willing, couldn't have made without sexual favours, etc. She always be "that one".

Spon Farmer

allym wrote: »

That affleck video is horrible. "They'd like it better if you did it topless". Poor woman's just trying to do her job

Horrible yes, but only from the fact that it is just stupid behaviour.

Is he forcing the woman to do this? Is anyone?

She seems a very willing participant and this not the case with Weinstein.

Neyite

brevity wrote: »

Oh he knew. They all "knew"

A lot of plausible deniability imo.

They should follow Kate Winslet's lead and claim that they heard some rumours but hoped that it wasn't true. It's more believable than claiming you had no idea even when your own mate's girlfriends knew he was a creep (Clooney).

It seems to be though that he chose his targets very well - women with little power or even not all that well known in the industry. He had political friends, DA friends who managed to quash any potential allegations getting as far as a court, he had an army of some of the cleverest lawyers in Hollywood. What's can a 20yo just starting out in her career do to stand up to someone like that?

Taking a settlement from lawyers or from HW himself is not excusing his actions, or forgiving them or even some sort of post-dated consent for the sexual assault, like some seem to think. It's not an admission from the victim that the assault wasn't what she said it was - in fact, it's the opposite. If she was making stuff up, lawyers would destroy her. By agreeing a settlement and getting an NDA signed, it's actually reinforcing the truth of the allegations. Taking a settlement from him is probably the only way someone that powerful could be held to account even in some little way.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

Now that Matt Damon has daughters he realises predatory behaviour is wrong .... all this 'as the father of daughters' shi*e grinds my gears. Oh, now that YOUR daughters might be at risk it's important. Other women just not as valuable eh?

I hate that ****. Along with its close relative "it could be your mother/sister" bull****. As soon as someone starts that all I can think is "Seriously?". I tend to have questions about people who only lately come to realise that women are people too, no matter how right-on they think they're being.

allym

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Horrible yes, but only from the fact that it is just stupid behaviour.

Is he forcing the woman to do this? Is anyone?

She seems a very willing participant and this not the case with Weinstein.

I didn't say it was like Weinstein. I said it was horrible which it is. And again...she's someone just trying to do her job and he's a big Hollywood star. What was she going to do, smack him across the face? Tell him to fck off on television?

Regardless of whether she was "willing" or not, she should never have been put in that position by him while trying to do her job. This wasn't a casual night out she is literally at work.

Would he do that to a male interviewer?

Spon Farmer

anna080 wrote: »

Asking whether or not you'd know if your friend was an abuser is completely different to the systemic culture of abuse that had dominance in the industry you work in. Clooney's statement was very wishy washy. "I knew but I didn't know", kind of thing. Bull. "Dirty Harvey" he said they used to call him. I'm not buying he didn't know for a second. As Wibbs said earlier he is industry friends with those names who are at the centre of this right now.
Clooney was very careful to say he'd never personally seen any of it- but that he'd heard "rumours".

It is the same thing.

Clooney's statement is about Weinstein and not the sleazy history of Hollywood. It is very likely that Clooney knows this kind of thing happens but that he doesn't know specifics or was aware that people he knows do it. He is just a man, not some all knowing deity.

What you are doing here is guilt by association.

Spon Farmer

optogirl wrote: »

Now that Matt Damon has daughters he realises predatory behaviour is wrong .... all this 'as the father of daughters' shi*e grinds my gears. Oh, now that YOUR daughters might be at risk it's important. Other women just not as valuable eh?

That is not what Damon said.

He said very clearly that he couldn't abide this behaviour before and now that he is a father it worries him on a personal level.

And, he didn't say it, but yes, Matt Damon's daughters are more valuable to him than other peoples daughters and other woman. Of course they are. It is pretty daft thing to get upset with the guy about.

What parent doesn't care more about their own children than other people?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, I can't believe that with the entire might of the US intelligence agencies at their disposal while still engaged in conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere they never once said "Maybe you should check up on this movie producer..."

This is a very simple thought process you are demonstrating. Do you really think nobody in the U.S. intelligence services/police departments etc knew about Weinstein? Is this what you are suggesting? The President sits at the top of the intelligence pyramid.

She had Secret Service protection and do you really think as depraved as Weinstein's actions are, he'd try to assault the President's daughter?

Have you been paying attention at all? Weinstein is a pervert who has no sexual control whatsoever. He has already assaulted household names, and tried to assault people like Angelina Jolie, who is a goodwill ambassador at the UN.

He would certainly try and assault Malia Obama, of that I am certain. Whether he actually get a chance to do so remains to be seen.

I think that's what you're looking at. In fact, I'd say it's what you're trying your damnedest to look at. Why? I don't know. But you're doing some reaching that even Stretch Armstrong would look at with disbelief.

I am providing a theory, nothing more.

But FFS, don't try telling me that President Obama didn't know about Harvey Weinstein. :rolleyes:

Obama almost certainly knew, and still allowed his daughter to work with a known rapist. I am trying to establish why President Obama would allow that to happen.

partyguinness wrote: »

I have to admit, I never heard of Harvey Weinstein up to a few days ago.

ps. I am not a movie buff.

Most people wouldn't have known him. And it's these 'men behind the curtain' that you have to really watch out for. The ones who pull the strings in the background. They are the the real power behind the throne, in any industry.
But it must also be said, that these people are probably answerable to bigger players, which suggests to me that there might be an intelligence services or organised crime angle to this.
We only need to see the way that Jimmy Saville was protected to know that.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I don't think what is happening in that video is quite the same thing as Weinstein's behaviour.

It is cringe worthy because it is stupid but is Affleck in a position of power here or having that woman do something against her will?

It's not as bad as Weinstein's behaviour of course, but it is still highly inappropriate, and would be grounds for immediate dismissal in any company around the globe. And all the more shocking from someone who regularly lectures on morality to us 'little' people.

Not to mention that careers have been destroyed for a lot less. I hope everyone still has their pussy hats...

optogirl

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Horrible yes, but only from the fact that it is just stupid behaviour.

Is he forcing the woman to do this? Is anyone?

She seems a very willing participant and this not the case with Weinstein.

She absolutely doesn't seem a very willing participant. She isnt' doing anything. She looks uncomfortable and out of her depth and has chosen to put up and shut up because in that situation what is she going to do? She's young, at work & put in a rotten position. It made me go red with humiliation for her & I bet lots of other women would say the same. It's so familiar and so disappointing.

optogirl

Spon Farmer wrote: »

That is not what Damon said.

He said very clearly that he couldn't abide this behaviour before and now that he is a father it worries him on a personal level.

And, he didn't say it, but yes, Matt Damon's daughters are more valuable to him than other peoples daughters and other woman. Of course they are. It is pretty daft thing to get upset with the guy about.

What parent doesn't care more about their own children than other people?

There's always a lot of 'as the father of girls' stuff in connection to high profile sexual misconduct - I just think we shouldn't wait until it's potentially 'one of our own' before we express our distaste.
I am not upset with him ... this reaction, from anyone, just annoys me.

Wibbs

Spon Farmer wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself here. He might be genuine but has to have known?

No, I said he may be genuine he may not. Giving some benefit of the doubt there, but then went on to outline my doubts. No contradictions.

It is entirely possible that people in the business don't know every dirty secret. Clooney isn't exactly Weinstein's type so he was never in the situation and hanging out doesn't make you friends or mean they really know each other. Even if Clooney knew any of the women there is is no reason to believe they'd confide in him.

He knows him for years, he has produced films with him, he's friends with his friends. They would certainly be close enough that such rumours which were rife would be known to him. And as I say a close friend of his warned Weinstein off his girlfriend.

If a friend of yours was accused of sexual assault would you consider it reasonable for people to think you must have known he did it?

Yes, I would actually. It doesn't mean I would know, but it would be reasonable for people to think I might. Doubly so if there were circulating rumours within my social set and industry about a friend of mine.

I've only read that Pitt confronted Weinstein about Paltrow, not about Jolie, but I assumed that likely. That doesn't mean Pitt must have known Weinstein was always at it. Movie stars can be naive too.

If two of my girlfriends were hit on by someone, I'd be thinking WTF, again especially of the same someone had a reputation for it.

Ben Affleck apparently told Weinstein to keep his hands of Rose McGowan. She told Affleck it happened again. She has now claimed Affleck was pretending he knew nothing of it at all but it seems clear to me that Affleck's statement was about not knowing that the extent of the behaviour.

Well, personally I'd call that a naive take on things.