The court said he didn’t receive a fair trial. Meanwhile, Trump is getting hit from all sides of clown world.
I’m starting to think this ruling was made on purpose to show the stark difference between the way Trump is being treated and an actual rapist like Weinstein
Trump is the only American in history to be charged for having a loan higher than the assessed value of a property. It's an utterly assinine charge that demonstrates how asleep a huge % of the population is.
Weinstein might be a rapist but we don’t know for sure because it’s never been proven, so we should refrain from calling him that in the spirit of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ What he was convicted of was ridiculous and it never should have been ruled that way, which is why it’s right to overturn it on appeal. The “victim” was his girlfriend of several years who admitted to multiple occasions of consensual sex with Weinstein before and after the alleged rape event. Really, she just picked an occasion somewhere out of the middle and retroactively withdrew her consent from that one time. Witch hunt tactic.
Weinstein is an unsavory Hollywood jew. He was a mainstay on the casting couch, but those aspiring actresses consented voluntarily. They could’ve said ‘no, I don’t need the acting part that badly’, but they whored themselves instead. Then when they get older and the acting offers decline, they regret their business decision and decide that it was rape. It’s BS.
Global marxists have been attacking western birthrates for years, and one of their weapons has been feminism. Feminists are using a dislikable, unsavory character such as Weinstein to set a precedent for criminalizing male sexuality. The Weinstein conviction means that any other man can have a consensual event from his past retroactively redefined on the whim of an accuser with ulterior motives. That is unjust, and it places a dangerous weapon in the hands of globalists to remove almost anyone from society.
Following a nearly two-month trial, Weinstein was convicted last month of raping an Italian model and actor after he barged into her hotel room.”
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in. That means according to her story, she opened the door for him.
‘I did not rape this woman. I did not see this woman. I wasn’t at the hotel,” Weinstein said.’”
He claimed his accuser, as a former actor, knew how to “turn the tears on” and said the woman’s allegation was the result of a “cottage industry” of lawyers who have made careers out of suing him. Jane Doe 1 filed a civil suit against Weinstein shortly after he was convicted.”
The evidentiary standard for criminal convictions is beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the judge has to be about 99-100% sure that the defendant is guilty. He-said-she-said doesn’t meet this standard. There simply isn’t enough evidence for a conviction. Even with the conviction overturned on appeal, in the meantime if Weinstein was sued in civil court, it would be difficult to recoup the award because civil suits have the much lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of evidence. That means the judge only has to be 51% convinced of guilt.
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in.
You realize you're basing this whole thing on how a reporter wrote a sentence. Not about the trial but about a remembrance of the trial.
You're substituting your reading of this sentence and saying that over ways what the jurors saw when they heard the witness testify and heard the witness cross-examine and heard Weinstein's evidence.
You realize you could have just checked this fact right???
Because what happened and what barged in means here was that Weinstein was not invited and demanded to be let in and she did let him in. There's a lot of reporting on the trial. You can read about her testimony. You could read what she actually said
so if the owner of a Walmart store demands a woman have sex with them to get a job, that is ok? I'm pretty sure that's codified against... what makes a movie role any different?
The court said he didn’t receive a fair trial. Meanwhile, Trump is getting hit from all sides of clown world.
I’m starting to think this ruling was made on purpose to show the stark difference between the way Trump is being treated and an actual rapist like Weinstein
Yup. Bodego visit also emphasized that.
Trump is the only American in history to be charged for having a loan higher than the assessed value of a property. It's an utterly assinine charge that demonstrates how asleep a huge % of the population is.
How did a visit to a bodega do that?
Rules for thee but not for mee
Libs actually think Trump is 100x worse than whatever Weinstein did.
And most of them can't even articulate why. "Orange Man Bad" is just an article of faith with the left.
Weinstein might be a rapist but we don’t know for sure because it’s never been proven, so we should refrain from calling him that in the spirit of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ What he was convicted of was ridiculous and it never should have been ruled that way, which is why it’s right to overturn it on appeal. The “victim” was his girlfriend of several years who admitted to multiple occasions of consensual sex with Weinstein before and after the alleged rape event. Really, she just picked an occasion somewhere out of the middle and retroactively withdrew her consent from that one time. Witch hunt tactic.
Weinstein is an unsavory Hollywood jew. He was a mainstay on the casting couch, but those aspiring actresses consented voluntarily. They could’ve said ‘no, I don’t need the acting part that badly’, but they whored themselves instead. Then when they get older and the acting offers decline, they regret their business decision and decide that it was rape. It’s BS.
Global marxists have been attacking western birthrates for years, and one of their weapons has been feminism. Feminists are using a dislikable, unsavory character such as Weinstein to set a precedent for criminalizing male sexuality. The Weinstein conviction means that any other man can have a consensual event from his past retroactively redefined on the whim of an accuser with ulterior motives. That is unjust, and it places a dangerous weapon in the hands of globalists to remove almost anyone from society.
No. We know.
He was convicted for a rape in Beverly Hills .
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-23/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-to-xx-in-los-angeles-rape-case
Barged in? Hotel room doors usually have an automatic lock when closed and often also have a peephole, a deadbolt, a swing bar door guard, and a chain. Notice the article doesn’t claim that he broke in, just barged in. That means according to her story, she opened the door for him.
The evidentiary standard for criminal convictions is beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the judge has to be about 99-100% sure that the defendant is guilty. He-said-she-said doesn’t meet this standard. There simply isn’t enough evidence for a conviction. Even with the conviction overturned on appeal, in the meantime if Weinstein was sued in civil court, it would be difficult to recoup the award because civil suits have the much lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of evidence. That means the judge only has to be 51% convinced of guilt.
You defending Harvey Weinstein?
Who was convicted of rape by jury?
You realize you're basing this whole thing on how a reporter wrote a sentence. Not about the trial but about a remembrance of the trial.
You're substituting your reading of this sentence and saying that over ways what the jurors saw when they heard the witness testify and heard the witness cross-examine and heard Weinstein's evidence.
You realize you could have just checked this fact right???
Because what happened and what barged in means here was that Weinstein was not invited and demanded to be let in and she did let him in. There's a lot of reporting on the trial. You can read about her testimony. You could read what she actually said
ummm? So it's the women's fault?
whoring and falsely accusing is
so if the owner of a Walmart store demands a woman have sex with them to get a job, that is ok? I'm pretty sure that's codified against... what makes a movie role any different?
We are witnessing the END of the "casting couch"
Sure seems to be more than coincidental