Patterico's Pontifications


Fashion Designer Defends Harvey Weinstein, Blames Victims

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:01 am

[guest post by Dana]

Yet another example of women gutting other women. During a red carpet interview, fashion designer Donna Karan of DKNY was asked about the accusations being levied against Harvey Weinstein. She proceeded to shockingly suggest that the women claiming to have been victimized by the fat, filthy hands of Weinstein, were asking for it:

‘I think we have to look at ourselves. Obviously, the treatment of women all over the world is something that has always had to be identified. Certainly in the country of Haiti where I work, in Africa, in the developing world, it’s been a hard time for women.

‘To see it here in our own country is very difficult, but I also think how do we display ourselves? How do we present ourselves as women? What are we asking? Are we asking for it by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?

‘And what are we throwing out to our children today about how to dance and how to perform and what to wear? How much should they show?’

She then went on to express that she believes both Weinstein, and his wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman are “wonderful” people.

I’m guessing Karan hadn’t yet read the account of a temporary front-desk assistant named Emily Nestor who intentionally “dressed very frumpy” to meet Weinstein at a morning coffee meeting, and nonetheless faced “textbook sexual harassment” from the relentless predator. With that, it didn’t take any effort at all to find examples of Karan’s designer gowns made for specific clients with an eye to present that very overt sensuality and sexuality which she blames for Weinstein’s intimidating, inappropriate, and illegal behavior.



(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


126 Responses to “Fashion Designer Defends Harvey Weinstein, Blames Victims”

  1. Read the linked piece at The New Yorker. There are so many people bearing many levels of guilt and culpability. Why would anyone want to defend Weinstein in this way?

    Dana (023079)

  2. oh my goodness i can see that lady’s sassafras almost

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. I’d hit that.


    What? Was that inappropriate?

    SPQR (240837)

  4. Nobody can be as unkind to a woman as another woman. Yes, a lot of Hollywood’s wenches would let someone like Winstein grab them by the pussy for a ten-second walk-on part in a movie, but Ms. Karan is painting with too broad a brush as the examples in the post show.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. even goopy gwyneth wants a piece of this story now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. Apologies to our host for exceeding a PG-13 standard, but I tried to post the photos below the fold, but apparently I don’t know that works…

    Dana (023079)

  7. There are so many people bearing many levels of guilt and culpability.

    Anybody working in or having any contact with the entertainment industry who attempts to profess “ignorance” about Weinstein’s boorish behavior over the past quarter century is straight up lying.

    Yes Meryl; yes George; yes Glenn; yes Gwyneth; yes Angelina, yes Hillary, yes Barry and yes, Donald– that means you.

    Everybody from secretaries and sales reps to stage grips and studio execs were aware of what total scumbag this jerkoff was– and still is–and tolerated it accordingly. working around the problem as a part of doing business with a powerful putz who could literally make or break careers– just as it was tolerating the antics of Ailes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  8. 5, no pictures though, she tends to “go natural”

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  9. Hope it all works out…

    Colonel Haiku (7680d5)

  10. jennifer lawrence, who’s recently been enthusiastically putting out for the director of her last movie, says she didn’t know any of this kinda behavior was going on

    these allegations on Mr. Weinstein are really a lot “inexcusable and absolutely upsetting” she says


    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. How many first time actresses went from the casting couch to the cutting room floor? In that case they wouldn’t get their SAG card, unless I’m bad wrong.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  12. Three public accusations of rape made.l now.

    Dana (023079)

  13. I don’t get it. Don’t these guys have to take sexual harassment training like I’ve had to at damn near every company where I’ve worked in the last 20-25 years? Or do they get the different kind that teaches how to do it?

    CFarleigh (a06bdc)

  14. I always wondered what DKNY stood for but not bad enough to look it up. I thought maybe it was connected to 9/11.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  15. I don’t get it. Don’t these guys have to take sexual harassment training like I’ve had to at damn near every company where I’ve worked in the last 20-25 years? Or do they get the different kind that teaches how to do it?
    CFarleigh (a06bdc) — 10/10/2017 @ 12:09 pm

    Sexual Harassment training based off the sex ed demonstration from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  16. Hillary Clinton condemns Weinstein but makes no mention of returning his substantial contributions to her campaign and foundation:

    ‘I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,’ Clintoin said.

    ‘The behavior described by the women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behaviour.’

    Dana (023079)

  17. What’s the miles per gallon on liberal perverts? How about adding one mule-power to the equation?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  18. Dana: pervert enabling adds juice, no?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  19. Does Dana condone pussy-grabbing right wringing?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  20. In that case they wouldn’t get their SAG card

    i think this isn’t the case anymore i know one girl what got her card just by showing up and being told oh we don’t need you after all

    she pitched a fit and she got her card

    then they gave her an extremely crappy part like “homeless chick with leprosy”

    and as far as i know she never worked after that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. Leaving aside what’s been published on the pages of the Penthouse Magazine “Forum,” has there ever been a woman in history who’s “asked for it” on behalf of a potted plant?

    The safe word is: Bromeliad!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  22. Nice attempt at humor Beldar.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  23. Uh, is the LA DAO doing anything here?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  24. Hillary Clinton condemns Weinstein
    WHY NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  25. and as far as i know she never worked after that
    Well just not in those type of flicks but in the ones from the San Fernando Valley.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  26. What was it Carville and Begala used to say when their boss was up to his boxers in his own tawdry activities? Sex, sex, sex… it’s just about sex… Ken Starr is just a perr-verrt.

    crazy (d99a88)

  27. Crazy, Larry Craig wonders aloud why every conservative is complaining about the gender-ification of public crappers.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  28. Does Dana condone pussy-grabbing right wringing?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 10/10/2017 @ 12:20 pm

    You must be new here.

    Dana (023079)

  29. Weinstein is a pig who apparently deserves everything he has coming to him but like many who came of age during the Age of Aquarius he’s not alone.

    crazy (d99a88)

  30. I am new..and impressionable, Dana.
    That comment formed by your impression.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  31. @16. ‘I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,’ Clinton said.

    Shocked my azz: she’s lying like a starlet on a producer’s office rug.

    Strip away everything from this down to the basics and her ‘response’ is why she was a lousy candidate and would have made a worse president:

    1.- It has taken her far too long to craft a calculated statement; so long, in fact, that by the time she worked out what to ‘say’- in the middle of a flagging book tour no less- the graphic revelations were made public, the jerkoff was hung out to dry and has been fired from his company. She tolerated this behavior for power in her marriage and tolerated it from a big donor shooting wads o cash into her– coffers.

    2.- She’s lying her azz off; EVERYBODY knew about Wankstein’s behavior. EVERYBODY.

    To deny is to lie.

    End of story.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Which comment, Ben burn?

    Dana (023079)

  33. The whole thread and nearly every thread is self [conservative] serving Dana. It’s difficult to pick just one.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  34. Your posts are reflective of this excuse- mongering over Trump being better than if it was an excuse for any behaviors….

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  35. Mr. Weinstein’s just looking for someone to love and that will love him back

    what good is being a super-awesome movie mogul if you have nobody to share with except just your wife

    he has so much to give, and it’s not like he can just hop on the tinder

    so what do we think about Amber Tamblyn’s story about James Woods

    she’s nasty and she looks like a dirty liar what’s desperate for attention

    you know who like the young stuff is that Katie Couric

    oh my goodness

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. “shocked and appalled by the revelations”. She’s not lying. It’s Clintonese. It’s the revelations you see, not the actions. If not revealed then no shock nor appallishnesses.

    Let me translate further for you…
    “The behavior described by the women coming forward cannot be tolerated”

    The behavior. Described by the women. Selectively not saying anything about the behavior engaged in by HW. Just the behaviors.

    “Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behaviour.”
    Note the pro-strong women, yay! wording. And again. The kind of behavior. Not the specific behavior engaged in, allegedly of course, by HW. That would be a separate matter. Depending on what the meaning of the word “be” be.

    CFarleigh (a06bdc)

  37. @36. No.

    She’s straight out lying.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. Donna Karan of DKNY

    DKNY’s just the subset of Donna Karan what’s kind of affordable

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  39. i love how filthy trollop Jennifer Lawrence finds Mr. Weinstein “inexcusable” then goes on to make millions doing movies for known kiddie-diddler Bryan Singer

    you know she has to feel dirty all up inside

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  40. Really? Every thread is “self [conservative] serving”? This post makes no mention of anyone’s political persuasion at all. Nor do my comments. Threads are made up of any number of commenters saying what they want to say. I posted Hilary’s comments as they are newsworthy.

    I have to disagree with your assessment.

    Dana (023079)

  41. At CFarleigh, who wrote (#36):

    Depending on what the meaning of the word “be” be.

    I thought I’d heard every possible riff on “‘is’ is,” but I haven’t heard that one. Very droll, made me smile.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. Harvey Weinstein Caught on Tape by NYPD Admitting to Groping

    Harvey Weinstein is heard admitting to groping model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez in audio obtained from an NYPD sting operation, and published by the New Yorker on Tuesday.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. Does she, I mean about Jen, she forgot she was from district 8

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. I’m sure it’s just my bias at play, Dana.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  45. @16 Dana

    I wonder what Hillary would have done if HW came up behind her at a debate?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  46. 45

    What she should have done to Trump during the debates…kick him in the peanuts.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  47. @20 happyfeet

    HW’s next court appearance could be like TRHPS. At a certain point everybody in the gallery throws a copy of What Happened at the defendant.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  48. The safe word is: Bromeliad!
    Beldar (fa637a) — 10/10/2017 @ 12:36 pm

    They are water resistant. I don’t think butterflies and bees would know what to make of his pollenization attempts.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  49. #35 happyfeet

    If James Woods keeps on swimming against the liberal tide he’s gonna end up in an Onion Field.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  50. Harvey Weinstein?

    He came; we saw; he lied


    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  51. he says he’s retired now

    but i think twitter more or less did him in

    poor man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  52. Can’t wait for the SNL skit of Damon and Crowe as the Piranha Brothers going into the offices of the NYTimes and telling them to kill the Waxman article on Godfather Harvey.

    harkin (fabf46)

  53. That would be Luigi vercotti, know your python tropes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. if you’ve long thought that the national NFL pedophile league was comprised of slave-owners ESPN’s confirmed your worst fears

    meanwhile speaking of corrupt sjw-infested organizations this seems ungodly silly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  55. If you don’t want me to treat you like a Ho, don’t dress like one.

    Just like if I don’t want you to treat my like a Policeman, I won’t dress like one.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  56. #54 Yeah, Wilpon over there is comparing millionaire 20 year olds ATH with slaves and their paymaster billionaires and slave owners.

    Sign me up for slavery of that kind.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  57. DKNY’s just the subset of Donna Karan what’s kind of affordable
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/10/2017 @ 2:11 pm

    Did Donna Karenina have strange erotic journey from Milan to Minsk?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  58. that was kate spade

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. In the linked article in The New Yorker, From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories,
    sub-headlined “Multiple women share harrowing accounts of sexual assault and harassment by the film executive,” we find this:

    For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories.

    And then there is not a single word in any of the 7500+ words that follow about how, exactly, Weinstein and his associates used NDAs, payoffs, or threats to silence “many publications, including The New Yorker.”

    Does that strike anyone as odd? Do we think that The New Yorker has all these wonderful sources among Hollywood actresses and business executives, yet no sources at all — not even in-house — regarding their own knowledge, silence despite that knowledge, and justifications now for that?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. I have to disagree with your assessment.
    Dana (023079) — 10/10/2017 @ 2:21 pm

    Ben Burn fancies himself an Alan Jackson “where were you when…” style trouba-bore.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  61. I never knew NDA’s covered illegal activities. Man, did I miss some great business opportunities.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  62. Beldar,

    Everyone is scrambling to keep the appearance of clean hands. For media outlets, I guess it’s a bit trickier: they are compelled to report on this scandal, while at the same time making sure that they don’t emit even a whiff of their own complicity.

    Dana (023079)

  63. Sign me up for slavery of that kind.
    Poor Biggie (987b85) — 10/10/2017 @ 3:11 pm

    Slaves don’t tell Big Daddy how to run the plantation.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  64. He wanted to be like Jay Z

    A lady in the scenes but a

    Freak in the suites

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  65. Remember that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  66. During my years as a BigLaw partner, I only had occasion to ever fire one person — “Leroy,” I’ll call him here, a second-year associate in the firm’s Houston litigation department. At that time our local department comprised about two dozen lawyers plus associated staff. The department head was out of town that day, so as the only other partner in the local department, I was responsible for investigating and making recommendations to the firm’s managing partner in NYC when we got a complaint from Leroy’s new secretary that he had exposed himself to her in his office — during work hours, but behind closed doors, that very morning. Hadn’t said anything, hadn’t touched her, but just yanked it out and stared at her until she fled from the room.

    After interviewing her, I interviewed six other secretaries who worked in the department, including my own, all of whom backstopped each other from time to time and all of whom had thus had occasion to do work for Leroy. Three of them confirmed that they had personally been subjected to Leroy exposing himself; the other three, including my secretary, confirmed that they’d heard of Leroy doing this before, but hadn’t spoken up.

    I didn’t fuss at any of the others, but took my own secretary — a wonderful young woman, among the best and most professional I’ve ever worked with — aside, and I asked her privately, “Paula! Why on earth would you not mention to me that you’d heard this about Leroy?”

    “Well, I just thought that was Leroy being Leroy,” she said with a shrug. She told me that none of the female staff had a very high opinion of Leroy anyway (whether in terms of his looks or his personality or anything else). They already all thought he was a creep, and they figured he’d get fired soon for something else anyway — all of which was absolutely spot-on.

    “Do you think that’s what kind of office we’re running, that we’d tolerate a lawyer doing that here?” I asked. “Do you think I would permit that for an instant, if I knew about it?”

    She thought about my question for a moment, but then said, “I didn’t ever really think of that, but I guess not. Leroy’s just that way, we didn’t take him seriously.” Then she tilted her head and looked at me. “He probably knows if he’d ever tried that with me, I’d have kicked him to Kingdom come.” (Paula was a barrel-rider on weekends, lived with horses in a Houston suburb called “Cut ‘n Shoot,” in fact; she’s right that Leroy probably knew better than to try anything with her directly.)

    “The firm takes this seriously, and I take this seriously,” I told her emphatically, “and please tell every other female staff member in this department that they should never, ever, for one moment tolerate that kind of stuff from anyone at this firm, because we do not and cannot tolerate it as a firm, and we can’t let anyone get away with it!”

    With a partner from another department to be my witness, I then confronted Leroy — who seemed unsurprised, almost relieved, and didn’t deny anything.

    I reported back to NY and got the instruction that I was to to fire Leroy “instanter,” which is even faster than the proverbial New York minute, and to see that he was escorted from the building by security, personal possessions to follow in a box sometime later. I was and am proud that I concealed my relish, I think, when I delivered the news to Leroy. I’d invited the entire department to come watch as he was escorted out the door by a uniformed security guard. As the elevator doors closed with Leroy and the guard behind them, I then announced to the assembled lawyers and staff that of course, since this was a personnel matter, due to personal privacy concerns of the ex-employee, I therefore couldn’t say another word to them about what had just happened. I added that I was nevertheless glad they had been there to see whatever it was that they just saw, about which I could make no further comment, but also about which I would have no personal objection if they merely described what they had seen to anyone within the firm who wasn’t there that day.

    Then I wrote a long memorandum to the file, of course. But the whole deal was over within two hours, start to finish, from the moment I’d heard the complaint.

    Looking back on this singular experience — for I’ve never since been in a position to have to fire anyone, fortunately — I’m reasonably proud of the way I handled it. But I’m still troubled, 27-odd years later, that my own secretary thought it might be okay not to tattle on Leroy.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. Jay Z now that’s one feller what made a big ole basket of good life choices

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. Well he did work for the dog trainer:

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. That previous bit was about dilanian:

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. I’m picking up a theme to many of the reportings today on the Weinstein allegations:

    This is not unique to Hollywood.

    It is not unique to liberals.

    Bill O’Reilly

    Roger Ailes

    Donald Trump

    Repeat repeat repeat.

    I certainly don’t remember articles on O’Reilly, Ailes or Trump reminding everyone this was not a uniquely conservative thing.

    harkin (fabf46)

  71. @62. Impossible.

    Just as w/Ailes, industry people knew this and excused it for career advancement and substantial financial gain.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. 53 – “That would be Luigi vercotti,”

    You are right – never trust memory, always check!

    harkin (fabf46)

  73. They’ve known for decades Read the whole thing – 38 tweets – as they say

    We need more Paula’s, less Leroy’s and more bosses like Beldar

    crazy (d99a88)

  74. Of course they did, its a little like Donald sterling whose danegeld bought him goodwill, till he was no longer indispensable.

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. @ Dana (#62): Yup. Febreze stock should be up this week.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. I would say a full wildfire decontamination is order.

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. This hell is worse than Mel’s. Gibson was just a drunken anti-semite, but after years in the desert, found redemption when he became marginally bankable again. Wankstein won’t be so lucky.

    If this was a movie script, ‘Citizen Shame’ knows how this has to end.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. you can’t spell hollywood without “ho” and “wood” Mr. narciso them’s the sad reality

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  79. @80. Ahhh, but you like to watch…dontcha, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. i like stories Mr. DCSCA

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. @ Hoagie, who wrote (#61):

    I never knew NDA’s covered illegal activities. Man, did I miss some great business opportunities.

    Actually ….

    NDAs are, in general, difficult to enforce compared to most other contracts. As a practical and legal matter both, it’s hard to claw back settlement payments made in consideration of a promise of future silence that is later breached. It’s hard to prove damages from such a brief, beyond perhaps the amount of the underlying settlement, because the person who breaches the NDA will urge that truthful disclosures haven’t damaged the target in a way that the law (or actually, equity) will permit to be compensated. The person bringing the suit also has the full “Streisand effect” to contend with — the lawsuit will surely further publicize the just-disclosed allegations, and the resulting litigation might well give others the means and incentive to prove them using subpoena power and compulsory depositions of litigants and nonparties (including, potentially, press sources).

    I usually deal with confidentiality agreements in the context of litigation settlements. I always warn my clients who are paying for one — and yes, you have to pay more to extract these, it’s often a late- but hard-bargained term — that they’re only marginally enforceable at best. On a very few occasions, I’ve even seen settlements structured with back-end payments, sometimes held by an intermediary, that are contingent on continued compliance with the confidentiality agreement.

    At this point, Weinstein threatening anyone with a lawsuit over the breach of an NDA is objectively ridiculous, either morally or legally, even if they were immaculately prepared with all the right magic words and disclaimers and continuing covenants and so forth. And if press reports are true, and it’s eventually established to the satisfaction of the relevant factfinder (judge or jury) that Weinstein & his agents solicited perjury — in the form of knowingly false affidavits demanded by Weinstein in exchange for his combination of bribes and threats — then Weinstein could be looking at nontrivial obstruction of justice jeopardy.

    Isn’t that peachy? 😀

    So maybe you didn’t miss too many opportunities after all, my friend!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  82. 56, Biggs, that sounds like the cartoon dog that Cheech Marin voiced in Oliver and Company (1:10,

    urbanleftbehind (5abba7)

  83. High up on the list of likely enablers: Weinstein’s “super-lawyer,” David Boies, formerly a partner leading IBM’s defense of the government’s antitrust case against it at Cravath, Swaine & Moore (I met him while interviewing there in 1979), later better known as Al Gore’s lead lawyer in Bush v. Gore. International Business Times (whose claims I usually take with a large grain of salt) alleges that Boies and his son and law partners have donated $182k to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. over the course of his political career, including $10k from Boies personally in 2015 “in the months after Vance’s office decided not to prosecute Weinstein over sexual assault allegations.” Boies is now part of Weinstein’s PR/damage control team. If I were him, I’d be a little worried about my license, especially if I was involved in documenting any of the NDAs (see above re obstruction, which, yes, can be brought against the civil lawyers and not just against their clients).

    The only satisfactory conclusion to this whole affairs involves hot tar, feathers, and rail-riding for many dozens of coastal elites in the entertainment and media and law enforcement worlds — followed by exile to North Sentinal Island in the Indian Ocean. But that is surely too much for which to hope.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  84. Mehbe HW he play a character like Borat

    Mai wife! She real mad at me

    I grope women and look like Azamat

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  85. Inglorious


    We say hello

    With our hands

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  86. oh for the love of jaundiced babies Ben Affleck doesn’t get to be Mr. judgeypants here

    this is just getting silly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  87. I never knew NDA’s covered illegal activities. Man, did I miss some great business opportunities.
    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 10/10/2017 @ 3:33 pm

    How to suck sleaze in business without really trying.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  88. It raises a question, if Boise was council in 2004 as well as 2015

    narciso (d1f714)

  89. If there’s two things Ben Affleck knows about it’s 1. Islam 2. Sexual Harassment.

    Or is that A. and B. ?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  90. Wow if we could flay and slaughter the career of David Boies in the process…. what a glorious outcome.

    I can only pray for as many Leftist to extinguish themselves in the flames or their creation.

    Will say a prayer for it!

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  91. Do you think Trump can buy cheatsheets for IQ tests?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  92. Cui bono from all this — the collapse of the NFL, the collapse of Hollywood?

    The videogame industry. Also Nascar. Who else?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  93. Oh..he was just choking, err..joking.

    “The president certainly never implied that the secretary of state was not incredibly intelligent,” Sanders insisted. “He made a joke, nothing more than that.”

    “He has full confidence in the secretary of state,” she added. “They had a great visit earlier today and they’re working hand-in-hand to move the president’s agenda forward.”

    When pressed on the matter, Sanders shot back: “Maybe you guys should get a sense of humor.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  94. The only NDAs I have any experience with are for trade secrets. I do have a little experience with blackmail. Blackmail money is generally recoverable, but does the statute of limitations begin to run when the payoff is made or when the blackmailer breaches the non-disclosure agreement?

    nk (dbc370)

  95. I’m Buzz Weinstein

    I see sex workers

    Sex workers everywhere

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  96. Harvey was fired from his company. Boies has almost certainly represented both The Weinstein Company (indeed, he lists it on his representative client list on his webpage) but also Harvey personally.

    Boies has some conflicts issues. He ought not any longer be representing either Harvey personally or the Company in my opinion. If he was documenting his and both clients’ ethics considerations properly, he should have a regular and comprehensive practice of only working under the terms of written engagement letters, and as part of those, he should already have made written disclosures and gotten written cross-consents from both clients before undertaking the representation of the second one that hired him, whichever that was. But what might have been a waivable conflict (after full disclosures and informed consent of both clients) probably becomes an unwaivable one when his two clients are adverse to one another, both publicly and privately, and he’s been privy to the client confidences of them both. He should be serving neither as private counselor nor public advocate. And that’s true even if (as it probably is) Boies was billing the Company for the work he was doing for Harvey on Harvey’s personal behalf.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  97. @ nk (#100): For civil purposes, probably the latter.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  98. Thank you, Beldar. And I’d like to add that I see a difference between an agreement not to disclose the terms of a settlement, such as Trump’s with Carrie Prejean, which has the valid purpose of not revealing the defendant’s “nuisance value”; and one where the plaintiff agrees not to disclose the embarrassing or criminal cause of action. That second one is the one which smacks like lawyer-enabled blackmail to me.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. @86. Interest in sexual harassment was suppressed to protect Roger Ailes: Is that why Bill O’Reilly got away with his abuses?

    Clinton was impeached; Wankstein has been fired. Ailes was canned; O’Reilly dumped– and the band plays on.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  100. Well no Clinton skated, ailes died subsequently canned without his day in court, o’reilly likewise,

    narciso (d1f714)

  101. @ Beldar,

    International Business Times (whose claims I usually take with a large grain of salt) alleges that Boies and his son and law partners have donated $182k to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. over the course of his political career, including $10k from Boies personally in 2015 “in the months after Vance’s office decided not to prosecute Weinstein over sexual assault allegations.”

    This is the same Cyrus Vance who opted not to prosecute Ivanka and Donald Trump, right, and there was also an issue of monetary contribution to his campaign. While he returned it, he also overruled his own prosecutors, and the case was dropped. Vance again received a sizable donation from attorney Kasowitz, which he later returned.


    But, less than six months after the D.A.’s office dropped the case, Kasowitz made an even larger donation to Vance’s campaign, and helped raise more from others—eventually, a total of more than fifty thousand dollars. After being asked about these donations as part of the reporting for this article—more than four years after the fact—Vance said he now plans to give back Kasowitz’s second contribution, too. “I don’t want the money to be a millstone around anybody’s neck, including the office’s,” he said.

    Do you think this then brings into question Vance’s decision to not prosecute Weinstein? If proven that he did accept Boise’s contributions, does that put Vance under any cloud of suspicion?

    Dana (023079)

  102. It is most charitable to say that neither the da or the us atty for the southern district. Have had stewardship, in the recent past

    narciso (d1f714)

  103. weinstein the democrat rapist > national NFL pedophile league > sleazy San Juan mayor titty-tees

    yes yes this order has been pecked

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  104. This is who Einstein has retained:

    narciso (d1f714)

  105. @ Dana, who asked (#108):

    If proven that [DA Vance] did accept Boise’s contributions, does that put Vance under any cloud of suspicion?

    It ought to in the eyes of voters. Given the venue, I doubt it will. And without a smoking gun that neither Vance or Boies would be stupid enough to leave behind, he’s in zero legal jeopardy. (Ask Jim Comey about how vast prosecutorial authority is, right?)

    The audio of the sting from 2015 isn’t unclear. If it was “I said, she said” and just her word for the prior day’s events and that day’s conversation, then sure, a reasonable prosecutor might say, “I can’t win a case based on her word against a guy like this.”

    But her credibility isn’t really at issue anymore after the tape is authenticated. Of course it’s a low-level sexual assault, but that is not at all the point. If that tape plus her testimony isn’t probable cause, I’ll eat my hat, and someone in the DA’s office decided, for some reason, otherwise.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  106. Beldar, well Boies has demonstrated his lack of ethics many times before and kept his license ….. 😈

    SPQR (a3a747)

  107. Speaking of, miss Chapman, the fmr? Miss weinstein seems to owe much of her business to his connection

    narciso (d1f714)

  108. looks like the new rule is you not supposed to grope the actresses

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  109. 108. @ Dana

    If proven that [DA Vance] did accept Boise’s contributions, does that put Vance under any cloud of suspicion?

    Yes, it does, when combined with the Trump/Mark Kasowitz case. (I had some details wrong there, by the way. Kasiwitz was Donald Trump’s lawyer, not his son’s or Ivanka’s, but the father wanted this cloud lifted. HThe contribution was returned after he met with the DA. Now the second one has been too. The plaintiffd got 90% of their deposits back plus attorney’s fees – then their lawyer sent a letter to the DA saying this time there was no crime. Kasowitz had proposed also that the corporation (which probably owned on;y that building) plead guilty or come to agreement with supervision, but he was able to avoid even that. New York State’s Martin Act prohibits materially false statements in selling securities or real estate, plus there was also the possibility of simple fraud. There had been a really big effort to lie to everybody. They claimed 60% of the units sold. They got the number sold up to 15.2%, just above the 15% needed to made the contracts binding, and probably stopped there, hoping to get better prices later. The building went into foreclosure in 2014, and is now owned by a creditor. Just over a third were sold. Under zoning laws it could only be a hotel which meant that the units could be occupied no more than 120 days out of the year) and the location was actually just outside what is usually called Soho – by the entrance to the Holland Tunnel. They started selling units just after housing prices peaked in 2007.)

    The Daily News ran an editorial today about Cy Vance.



    Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 4:05 AM

    Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance had his reasons for declining to prosecute Hollywood megaproducer Harvey Weinstein after model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez accused him of groping her in 2015.

    Vance’s chief assistant says that a chilling conversation with the young woman caught on a wire, plus other evidence, fell short of proving intent necessary to prove a crime. All eminently plausible.

    But damned if the picture drawn in sound — the woman’s agonized refusals (“I don’t want to be touched”), the mogul’s disgusting assertion that forcibly touching women without permission is just the way he works (“I’m used to that”) — doesn’t convey the chilling message to the women of New York that the law treads more lightly when the suspect in question is a wealthy and powerful bulldozer prepared to drag accusers through deep mud.

    The tape’s unspooling by the New Yorker Tuesday comes shortly after its revelations that Donald Trump’s family business skated past a criminal fraud investigation of Manhattan condo sales — with the Trump organization’s lawyer then giving generously to Vance’s campaign, meanwhile reaching civil settlement that bought complainants’ silence.

    Weinstein likewise settled with Gutierrez; his lawyer, too, gave generously to Vance’s campaign, months after Vance declined to bring charges…

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  110. 108. Dana:

    If proven that [DA Vance] did accept Boise’s contributions, does that put Vance under any cloud of suspicion?

    112. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/10/2017 @ 7:34 pm

    It ought to in the eyes of voters. Given the venue, I doubt it will.

    He’s running for re-election this year.

    Accordinbg to the New York Daily News, unopposed.

    The editorial I quoted above finishes:

    Wielding power over the powerful, Vance, who has generally led his office with integrity and who now runs unopposed for reelection, must better assure voters that his judgment sways not an inch in the face of deep-pocketed intimidators.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  111. Didn’t Shkrelli just get convicted of the same thing because even though his investors made money in the end, he lied to them to induce them to invest?

    nk (dbc370)

  112. Negiotiating with prosecutors isn’t new, and sometimes proecutors lie about their intent to bring charhes.

    E. F. Hutton settled a case in 1986 by oleading guilty to 2,000 counts of mail and wire fraud, at $1,000 fine a piece. That ws with the federal government – the issue was kiting checks.

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  113. So we are expected to believe, that only Harvey weinstein is a rutting satyr, do they think us fools?

    narciso (d1f714)

  114. I see where Harvey The Molester is headed to Europe for “sex rehab”*. Apparently because of Obummercare there are no sex rehabs in the US. Or maybe he’s just “Pulling a Polanski” as the celebrities call flight to avoid prosecution for sexual deviancy. Rumor has it he may stay at the Ira Einhorn Memorial Suite at the Paris Hilton. (not that Paris Hilton) France seems to be the place where American leftist killers and rapists love to meet and greet.

    *Leftists get rehab, everybody else gets prison.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  115. 118. nk (dbc370) — 10/11/2017 @ 8:51 am

    Didn’t Shkrelli just get convicted of the same thing because even though his investors made money in the end, he lied to them to induce them to invest?

    He was convicted of 3 out of 8 counts.

    The ones he was acquitted of I think concerned hw he managed to pay back his investors – by stealing from his second company. That was not the one that astronomically raised the price of generic drugs, which ws his third company and second pharmaceutical one.

    It apparently wasn’t clear that he had no right to siphon off money from his second company with consulting contracts and whatever else he used. He maybe could have declared the first company bankrupt but maybe went too far taking things from day to day.

    “Before he made headlines as the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Shkreli founded a pharmaceutical company, Retrophin, and a pair of hedge funds, MSMB Capital Management and MSMB Healthcare. Prosecutors say he committed a series of frauds while managing the funds between October 2009 and March 2014.

    “The SEC’s complaint alleges ‘widespread fraudulent conduct’ by Shkreli — a series of misrepresentations and omissions, and of taking money from one fund to cover claims against the other. According to the complaint, he also issued stock and made cash payments from Retrophin (disguised as payments for consulting services) to disgruntled investors in the hedge funds who were threatening to sue.

    “Prosecutors say Shkreli misled investors about the size and performance of MSMB Capital Management, claiming that its returns were ‘+35.77% since inception’ — when the fund had actually lost 18 percent. In another instance, he claimed the fund had $35 million in assets, when in fact it had less than $1,000 in assets.”

    Sammy Finkelman (9f1a19)

  116. the problem is if you let Harvey do groping on you there’s a competitive advantage what accrues to you as a professional

    so a lot of people were very much in favor of being groped on by Mr. Weinstein

    they were like here grope it

    but other people were like hey don’t do that it’s bad touch you stupid Harvey

    show us on the doll where Harvey touched you goopy gwyneth

    so as long as you can get ahead by letting the Weinsteins of the whirl make sexy on you, this problem is intractable

    and it’s tearing me up inside

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  117. Like I say, its a joke without a pubchline, take upstanding citizen matsjall mathers

    narciso (d1f714)

  118. Hoagie @ 122. They can still go to prison. Judges don’t have to buy that they’re cured. What it does is give the judges and/or the prosecutors they have bought off something to hang their hat on. To justify the lenient treatment.

    nk (dbc370)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4467 secs.