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
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.
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
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?