Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator who was among an elite group protected by both Hollywood and the mainstream media because of his connections.
It is no secret that success in life can often stem from who you know—but while the connections you make may be willing to vouch for your character in some instances, would they continually work to protect your reputation by suppressing the truth and ignoring dozens of allegations of sexual assault?
In the case of elite moguls like Harvey Weinstein, the answer is yes.
The women who have come forward about their encounters with Weinstein have told stories of a sex-obsessed Hollywood producer who used his ability to give them a role in a movie that would launch their career as an excuse to sexually assault them. But it was not just Weinstein—he had an entire team behind him, enabling his behavior.
In a lawsuit accusing Weinstein of violating sex-trafficking laws, British actress Kadian Noble claimed Weinstein enticed her to come up to his hotel room to discuss a possible role in a movie.
When Weinstein began touching Noble, and she indicated that she was uncomfortable, she said he put her on the phone with a producer from his company. The producer told Noble that “she needed to be ‘a good girl and do whatever he wished,’ and if she did, then ‘they would work’ with her further.”
However, Harvey’s protection extended beyond The Weinstein Company. According to a report from The New York Times, Weinstein held the coveted title of “F.O.P” or “Friend of Pecker,” which signaled his close friendship with David Pecker, the chief executive of American Media Inc. who is responsible for publications such as the National Enquirer, Star, Sun, Weekly World News and Globe.
In addition to avoiding negative press from the magazines and tabloids owned by his friends, the Times also claimed that many of the journalists who covered stories about Weinstein sought his approval, and they often “negotiated book and movie deals with him” in the process of covering stories about him.
“Weinstein held off press scrutiny with a mix of threats and enticements, drawing reporters close with the lure of access to stars, directors and celebrity-packed parties.
Some journalists negotiated book and movie deals with him even as they were assigned to cover him. The studio chief once paid a gossip writer to collect juicy celebrity tidbits that Mr. Weinstein could use to barter if other reporters stumbled onto an affair he was trying to keep quiet.”
Weinstein’s close friends included Jeff Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post. According to the report from the Times, Bezos reached out to Weinstein over email when he was concerned about the Wall Street Journal publishing a negative story on the environment at Amazon Studios.
Weinstein replied and said he was “happy to coordinate with whoever you’d like, as a friend of the court.” He encouraged Bezos to hit back at the Wall Street Journal with an aggressive response, and offered Bezos the services of Weinstein’s libel lawyer who “makes sure everyone sticks to the right narrative.”
Weinstein’s reputation as a sexual predator was not a secret in the industry. While several actresses have said they warned other women about Weinstein, agents and managers were also aware of Weinstein’s reputation—yet they still “sent actresses to meet him alone at hotels and advised them to stay quiet when things went wrong.”
“Agents and managers across Hollywood, who wanted in on Mr. Weinstein’s star-making films, sent actresses to meet him alone at hotels and advised them to stay quiet when things went wrong. ‘That’s just Harvey being Harvey,’ more than one agent told a client.
At [Creative Artists Agency], for example, at least eight talent agents were told that Mr. Weinstein had harassed or menaced female clients, but agents there continued to arrange private meetings.”
While this report is from The New York Times, it should be noted that in addition to being a part of the mainstream media, the Times has been directly responsible for censoring reports that could have exposed Weinstein’s actions 13 years ago.
Former New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman claimed that she attempted to reveal the truth about Weinstein in 2004.
She flew to Italy to investigate claims of a man who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to schedule Russian escorts for Weinstein. But when Weinstein found about the possibility of Waxman’s report being published, he convinced the Times to shut it down.
“The story I reported never ran,” Waxman wrote. “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.”
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
It’s easy to check out if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what, and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.He promised:1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary.No longer Voluntary2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,Now 7.65%on the first $90,0003.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,No longer tax deductible4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,Under Johnson, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month —and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we aid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ —you may be interested in the following:Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democraticallycontrolled House and Senate.Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic Party.Q: Which Political Party started taxing SocialSecurity annuities?A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the United States.Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?AND MY FAVORITE:A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party!Immigrants moved into this country,and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. But it’s worth a try.