Weinstein Exposes Democrats’ and Other Leftist Elites’ Dirt
A well-researched story put together in 2004 detailed Weinstein’s predatory behavior.
However Weinstein’s bank account killed the story before it ever hit the presses.
Obviously, money is power. And, if you contribute a huge chunk of the advertising budget of the country’s leading newspaper, you control the narrative that paper delivers. Sadly, the same newspaper that once promised “all the news that’s fit to print” should change it’s motto to “all the news we’ve been paid to give.”
True, the New York Times did finally break the Weinstein story. However, if it had run in 2004, countless women might have been saved from Weinstein’s perverted behavior. In fact, Sharon Waxman, founder of “The Wrap,” claims she wrote the story more than a decade ago and watched as Weinstein effectively killed it.
As Waxman tells us:
In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.
I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.
As head of Miramax Italy in 2003 and 2004, Fabrizio Lombardo was paid $400,000 for less than a year of employment. He was on the payroll of Miramax and thus the Walt Disney Company, which had bought the indie studio in 1993.
This guy was willing to go on the record. The Times didn’t care.
Admittedly, Lombardo knew squat about the movie industry. He was just the party man.
I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off.
The story I reported never ran.
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.
Some might argue that Weinstein’s not a politician or a political figure. Therefore, what makes him politically significant? Well, we can start with the hundreds of thousands of dollars he donated to Obama and the Clintons. They knew full well his reputation, yet they chose to take the money anyway.
Of course, I’m not surprised that Hillary would align herself with a man like Weinstein. She married a rapist and helped cover his crimes for decades. I’m not sure how this woman is the self-proclaimed leader of the feminist movement when she fundamentally aided in the victimization of so many woman from more than one perpetrator.
Since the news broke, many women have come forward with their own Weinstein stories. It’s sickening to read the many accounts women are now sharing. At least 8 women already settled lawsuits regarding Weinstein’s womanizing.
The Democratic National Committee says they will donate the $30,000 Weinstein gave them to charity. However, no such declaration was made by Obama or Hillary. They’d rather keep the dirty money.
As we previously reported, Weinstein was officially fired by his board of directors. Finally, a small sliver of justice occurred. However, it’s far from the end for this story. The laughable part is the leftist hypocrisy.
Recently, the Las Vegas massacre prompted leftists to call for more idiotic gun control laws before the dust at the crime scene even settled. Conservatives weren’t the only ones disturbed by how quickly people like Hillary Clinton politicized the worst shooting in history. According to leftists, the tragedy was political from the moment the first bullet was fired. However, the same smug liberals are outraged that Weinstein’s behavior is politicized? This man is a leftist mega donor; surely his criminal behavior is a valid concern.
This just further proves liberals are fake. Michelle Obama once gave an impassioned speech about why women should no longer tolerate men in power demeaning women. Yet, she gave a separate speech in which she called Weinstein a friend, someone she owed! So, which is it? Is he a womanizer or a friend?
How do you keep something that everybody knows so secret?
Weinstein isn’t JFK with no internet and social media. Much of what he did had all the scrutiny of the forces at play. 24-hour news cycles demand this type of story, yet Weinstein kept his not-so-secret hidden from everybody except Hollywood.
Who has the power to back the NY Times off a story? Not the president. But as Meryl Streep referred of Weinstein, he was a god.