This is an odd story because the New York Times wouldn’t be publishing a career ending report against one of their own, especially a power-player, if Mr. Weinstein didn’t end up on the wrong side of the ever-virtue-signaling cocktail party circuit for some reason.
Nice production company you’ve got here Mr. Weinstein; it’d be a shame if something happened to it….
A cursory motive for the far-left to punch one of their own would be if the target refused to participate in a larger agenda.
Perhaps refusing to fund a Madison Avenue agenda item; or if the target distanced themselves from the mission objective; or if the virtue resistance needed to send a message to other reluctant donors by tearing down one of the apex predator insiders.
Any combination therein is entirely possible.
Hillary’s current position within the late-night circuit of facilitating moral creeps would lend credence to the probability the loons need capital and “resistance” branding support; and Weinstein’s public embarrassment is merely a warning of required participation toward others. Harvey Weinstein’s response further validates that probability.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Harvey Weinstein, the larger-than-life Hollywood executive and Oscar-winner, is taking a leave of absence from his own company after an explosive expose revealing decades of sexual harassment against women, from employees to actress Ashley Judd, was published in The New York Times Thursday.
The article includes first person accounts of Weinstein’s alleged conduct, including from Judd, who recounts an incident from two decades ago in which she said she was asked to meet Weinstein in his hotel room. Weinstein greeted her wearing a bathrobe and asked her if she would give him a massage or watch him shower, the paper reported.
(more…)