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.
You might not understand the trap they set. By sacrificing someone we don’t like such as Weinstein, they’ve paved the way to go after good guys such as Trump, Assange, Kavanaugh, etc
Sorry but I agree. He is a scumbag Hollywood Jew, and in fact I do believe he is a rapist. But the trial was obviously a sham. They are not mutually exclusive circumstances.
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?
Under civil rights laws which never should have been codified because they’re violations of the right of free association, sex for jobs is penalized as workplace sexual harassment. It’s ridiculous, because the job seeker could just say ‘no deal’ and leave the lecherous employer with a smaller candidate pool. What is “ok” is difficult to determine because prostitution is ethical even if it’s sexually immoral. The “oldest profession” can be done mutually voluntarily where there is no need for the law to intercede. That’s not to say that the practice is advisable.
We are witnessing the END of the "casting couch"“
Yeah because they can just use AI actresses now. Hollywood whores have priced themselves out.
Indeed, the Civil Rights rabbit hole will need to be gone down at large, at some later point on the GAW timeline. Thx for your reply, you got me thinking!
Yeah because they can just use AI actresses now. Hollywood whores have priced themselves out.
kek, well I doubt it'll ever beat the real thing, but also a good point. It'll definitely make an impact on that profession.
New York's highest court grants Harvey Weinstein a new sexual assault trial, saying the judge should not have allowed in evidence of uncharged bad acts.
I think he is a pig. That said, the casting couch has been a thing since the start of Hollywood. This occurs in the biggest productions to the money laundering -B movies.
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?
indeed however just because the women do it doesn't make it their fault entirely, the employers who require it of them bear more blame than the women, imo
I'm wondering if he made some kind of deal. The reason I say this is because of the whole Gavin Newsome angle. His wife testified against Weinstein and his fish dick. Reportedly raped her, but then she was shown to keep cordial correspondence with him via text and email. Something rape victims probably would not do. I hoping this pissed off Weinstein and he's turning on all of them because they turned on him. Wishful thinking for this piece of shit, but who knows. Or it's just another case of our shitty two tier justice system, which is more likely.
One thing that did sound odd about Weinstein was the way the liberal media jumped on him and all the liberals also suddenly considered him their #1 enemy - just like that. Always reeked of controlled burn / limited hangout kind of operation.
When I first looked into the case I was a little surprised because the whole case was based on people saying certain things happening long back. There didn't seem to be much in terms of any other corroborating evidences with the story told.
Don't get me wrong - Weinstein is probably a PoS and. he will rot in jail with a retrial. I do believe in the retrial they will use much more concrete evidence - evidence that would send other people to prison as well.
AT the same time, this might be pre-programming people for appeals over-ruling of any Trump convictions as well.
No doubt this is definitely part of the 5D chess. Perhaps the same will happen with Maxwell as well ... dont know, but better to be prepared.
It was absolutely a limited hangout. Hollywood is FULL of that type of behavior on both sides. Women who would write DRR on their headshots in their audition packets (Directors Rights Respected, yeah, they were straight up selling their bodies for roles,) men who would let their positions go to their heads and start demanding the above as a pre-requisite, the drugs, the booze, the atmosphere itself all catering around it and law enforcement essentially being a willing partner in the process as well...
Pretty sure Weinstein was forced to take the L simply because he had "aged out" of being relevant and could draw fire without actually suffering any real consequences.
My immediate thought is this is pusposeful and can be a dragnet to recharge harvey but along with diddy and the redt of hollywood in a rico case. Because if patriots are truly in co trol then every single thing happening rIght now has a purpose from immunity at SCOTUS, to trump being a placeholder for others(my idea) during his trials. All the way to this.
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?
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 might not understand the trap they set. By sacrificing someone we don’t like such as Weinstein, they’ve paved the way to go after good guys such as Trump, Assange, Kavanaugh, etc
Sorry but I agree. He is a scumbag Hollywood Jew, and in fact I do believe he is a rapist. But the trial was obviously a sham. They are not mutually exclusive circumstances.
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"
Under civil rights laws which never should have been codified because they’re violations of the right of free association, sex for jobs is penalized as workplace sexual harassment. It’s ridiculous, because the job seeker could just say ‘no deal’ and leave the lecherous employer with a smaller candidate pool. What is “ok” is difficult to determine because prostitution is ethical even if it’s sexually immoral. The “oldest profession” can be done mutually voluntarily where there is no need for the law to intercede. That’s not to say that the practice is advisable.
Yeah because they can just use AI actresses now. Hollywood whores have priced themselves out.
Indeed, the Civil Rights rabbit hole will need to be gone down at large, at some later point on the GAW timeline. Thx for your reply, you got me thinking!
kek, well I doubt it'll ever beat the real thing, but also a good point. It'll definitely make an impact on that profession.
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.
Sure seems to be more than coincidental
I saw this too
I think he is a pig. That said, the casting couch has been a thing since the start of Hollywood. This occurs in the biggest productions to the money laundering -B movies.
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?
Im just sick of the me too being some of the biggest couch hoppers in Hollywood. The whole place needs to overhauled.
indeed however just because the women do it doesn't make it their fault entirely, the employers who require it of them bear more blame than the women, imo
I'm wondering if he made some kind of deal. The reason I say this is because of the whole Gavin Newsome angle. His wife testified against Weinstein and his fish dick. Reportedly raped her, but then she was shown to keep cordial correspondence with him via text and email. Something rape victims probably would not do. I hoping this pissed off Weinstein and he's turning on all of them because they turned on him. Wishful thinking for this piece of shit, but who knows. Or it's just another case of our shitty two tier justice system, which is more likely.
Of course it was!
I bet Epstein regrets killing himself, he could be a free man today.
precedent?
"judge should not have allowed in evidence of uncharged bad acts"
One thing that did sound odd about Weinstein was the way the liberal media jumped on him and all the liberals also suddenly considered him their #1 enemy - just like that. Always reeked of controlled burn / limited hangout kind of operation.
When I first looked into the case I was a little surprised because the whole case was based on people saying certain things happening long back. There didn't seem to be much in terms of any other corroborating evidences with the story told.
Don't get me wrong - Weinstein is probably a PoS and. he will rot in jail with a retrial. I do believe in the retrial they will use much more concrete evidence - evidence that would send other people to prison as well.
AT the same time, this might be pre-programming people for appeals over-ruling of any Trump convictions as well.
No doubt this is definitely part of the 5D chess. Perhaps the same will happen with Maxwell as well ... dont know, but better to be prepared.
It was absolutely a limited hangout. Hollywood is FULL of that type of behavior on both sides. Women who would write DRR on their headshots in their audition packets (Directors Rights Respected, yeah, they were straight up selling their bodies for roles,) men who would let their positions go to their heads and start demanding the above as a pre-requisite, the drugs, the booze, the atmosphere itself all catering around it and law enforcement essentially being a willing partner in the process as well...
Pretty sure Weinstein was forced to take the L simply because he had "aged out" of being relevant and could draw fire without actually suffering any real consequences.
Did Harvey expose himself to the New York’s appeal court ?
At least we have this:
https://twitter.com/Catsorange1/status/1783271579834581449
Disgusting.
The DEEP STATE players stick together.
My immediate thought is this is pusposeful and can be a dragnet to recharge harvey but along with diddy and the redt of hollywood in a rico case. Because if patriots are truly in co trol then every single thing happening rIght now has a purpose from immunity at SCOTUS, to trump being a placeholder for others(my idea) during his trials. All the way to this.
Gee, I bet Harvey had to empty his piggy bank to buy that decision.
So there's going to be a retrial?? With more eyes to watch this time. Should be interesting.
Did DJT make mean Tweets about Weinstein?
Kevin Hart’s leaving the country.