Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein

First topic message reminder :

Oprah Winfrey may believe that she's primed for a 2020 presidential run after her "empowering" Golden Globes speech heralding a new era in women's equality, free of abusive and manipulative entertainment industry mega-moguls. But when it comes to the most notorious offender among alleged Hollywood harassers — Harvey Weinstein — Oprah may have some explaining to do before she hits the campaign trail.

Like Meryl Streep, who also received flack for her longstanding relationship with the Miramax head — so longstanding, it seems impossible Streep was somehow excluded from hearing rumors of Harvey's misbehavior — Oprah has been close friends with Weinstein for decades, palling around with the producer at industry events and political fundraisers. She even co-produced "The Butler" with Weinstein, just a few short years ago.

And according to one of Weinstein's victims, Harvey was so close to Oprah, he used the relationship to seduce young actresses, taking them to parties where he could demonstrate his power by charming the daytime talk show host.

British actress Kadian Noble is one of several women suing Harvey Weinstein personally for what they say was predatory and harassing behavior. She claims Weinstein seduced her at a party where he introduced her to supermodels, and where Oprah was “swinging off his arm.”

“I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me. I felt completely played,” she said.​

She says Weinstein found her again at a party in Cannes, where he invited her up to his hotel room to give her career advice. She says he touched her inappropriately, then forced her to perform sexual acts on him in the bathroom in front of a mirror.

After allegations against Weinstein surfaced, Oprah found herself in the cross-hairs, forced to explain how she'd worked with and supported Weinstein for years, while somehow failing to notice he'd been known to prey on young women. When she gave her statement, she, like Meryl Streep, threw the focus off of Weinstein and the pair's friendship, focusing instead on how Weinstein's "outing" was a "watershed moment" for women, and how the focus should be on the strength of his accusers, not on the depths of Harvey's depravity.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25532/flashback-harvey-weinstein-accuser-says-he-used-emily-zanotti?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Trump is a" known child rapist"? Fuck sake, you are supposedly a Lawyer, don't you have Libel laws where you live?

Snopes wrote:Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

The case was settled silently, with a non-disclosure agreement.

However, during the pendency of the action, the Complaint was on file with the Court, and quite public.  The relevant excerpts read:



The article explains"

Snopes wrote:A copy of the California lawsuit (filed on 26 April 2016) shared via the Scribd web site outlined the allegations, which included the accusation that Trump and Epstein had (over 20 years earlier) “sexually and physically” abused the then 13-year-old plaintiff and forced her “to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts” — including being “forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump’s erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm,” and being “forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe, age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump” — after luring her to a “series of underage sex parties” by promising her “money and a modeling career”

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Even without evidence, she could have kept her distance from the scumbag, she didn't.

I don't need proof someone is scum to stay away from them. Do you?

It's not about me.  If it were me, I would have to say I had no knowledge, nor hint that Harvey Weinstein was bedding sexually abusing young actresses.  I wasn't privy to the channels that the gossip was taking.

I have no information that Oprah didn't stay away from Weinstien.  Just because the SAG puts you on the same stage, with several hundred other actors, does not mean you are colluding with him.

Nor, I suspect do you have any information that she did

And while we are extending the reach of the topic, what do you want to bet the victims in this saga will still vote for Trump (a known child rapist) next time, as they did over Hillary?  Here you are criticizing all these by-standers, when the victims themselves won't participate in a real fix.  At least it shows you how paltry the issue is for them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Original Quill wrote:

Snopes wrote:Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

The case was settled silently, with a non-disclosure agreement.

hahahaha, indeed

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The case was settled silently, with a non-disclosure agreement.

hahahaha, indeed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Non-disclosure agreements usually work hand-in-hand with publicists, who are paid to put out "alternative facts".  Likely, the above is an example. I think it's important for you to present this, so that people can see how non-disclosure agreements works to ruin the life of the victims.

Because none of the parties can talk, the alternative facts are usually works of utter fiction, with tabloid sensationalism to draw attention (drugs, crime, etc.).  About the only material evidence that still exists is the copiy of the Complaint, which I have given you.  Someone had enough evidence to draft and file the Complaint in a California Superior Court.

Lisa Bloom was the young girl's attorney.  Ms. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, famous attorney in matters of sexual harassment and women's rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

hahahaha, indeed

Non-disclosure agreements usually work hand-in-hand with publicists, who are paid to put out "alternative facts".  Because none of the parties can talk, the alternative facts are usually works of fiction.  About the only material evidence that still exists is the copiy of the Complaint, which I have given you.  Someone had enough evidence to draft and file the Complaint in a California Superior Court.

Lisa Bloom was the young girl's attorney.  Ms. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, famous attorney in matters of sexual harassment and women's rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

Blah, blah, blah, very interesting and all but what about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Thank you Quill, you should not make serious charges on Forums without including facts to back them up. You should know that !

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

hahahaha, indeed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Non-disclosure agreements usually work hand-in-hand with publicists, who are paid to put out "alternative facts".  Likely, the above is an example.  I think it's important for you to present this, so that people can see how non-disclosure agreements works to ruin the life of the victims.

Because none of the parties can talk, the alternative facts are usually works of utter fiction, with tabloid sensationalism to draw attention (drugs, crime, etc.).  About the only material evidence that still exists is the copiy of the Complaint, which I have given you.  Someone had enough evidence to draft and file the Complaint in a California Superior Court.

Lisa Bloom was the young girl's attorney.  Ms. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, famous attorney in matters of sexual harassment and women's rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

hang on,,,,none of the parties can talk? she was meant to give a press conference but she herself suddenly cancelled claiming there were ''threats made against her'' not verified in any way of course, so probably more bollox. she would have been perfectly safe at a press conference with high security so she had no reason to cancel.

probably paid by the clinton foundation if anyone

nicko wrote:Thank you Quill,    you should not make serious charges on Forums without including facts to back them up.    You should know that !

the allegation was fabricated

nicko wrote:Thank you Quill,    you should not make serious charges on Forums without including facts to back them up.    You should know that !

I have put these facts out (article, Complaint, denials, data on lawyer) so often that they are now commonplace. You either don't retain a memory of them, or you don't read carefully.

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Non-disclosure agreements usually work hand-in-hand with publicists, who are paid to put out "alternative facts".  Likely, the above is an example.  I think it's important for you to present this, so that people can see how non-disclosure agreements works to ruin the life of the victims.

Because none of the parties can talk, the alternative facts are usually works of utter fiction, with tabloid sensationalism to draw attention (drugs, crime, etc.).  About the only material evidence that still exists is the copiy of the Complaint, which I have given you.  Someone had enough evidence to draft and file the Complaint in a California Superior Court.

Lisa Bloom was the young girl's attorney.  Ms. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, famous attorney in matters of sexual harassment and women's rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

hang on,,,,none of the parties can talk?  she was meant to give a press conference but she herself suddenly cancelled claiming there were ''threats made against her''  not verified in any way of course, so probably more bollox.  she would have been perfectly safe at a press conference with high security so she had no reason to cancel.

probably paid by the clinton foundation if anyone

Likely, you were watching the negotiation process in real time.  A press conference would make public, for all time, the facts of the case.  That's what forced Trump to settle.  Duh...  By threatening a press conference, Lisa Bloom was doing an outstanding job...holding the feet to the fire, so to speak.

They made up the "threat" story, because that's what publicists do...make up stories.  They were just buying time to complete the settlement.  That's very consistent with Trump, who is known to 'foot-drag' during negotiations.  This is my business...to put on shows for others...juries, public, etc.  Instead of being observant, you are living the show.  You are the sucker being taken for a ride.

If I may, I offer you as the example.  Observe how well it works: you are quite willing to victimize the victim all over again, because you are inside the story that money bought.  You believe the shit.  If you stand back and wake up, you see how insidiously effective it all is.

Now do you see why Trump lies?  It's effective!  Why not?  After a while it affects the mind, and he comes to believe his own crap.

I didn't mean to turn this into a lecture series on how these young girls are victimized, but it's timely and spot-on with the topic.

Original Quill wrote:I go back to our exchange, above:

Original Quill wrote:To speak out, but ironically, she was probably too powerful to experience it firsthand.  It’s in the perception of it, that I think the flaw exists…if it didn’t happen to you, it’s remote.

Syl wrote:But that's a bit 'I'm all right Jack' mentality.  Looking the other way because it didn't happen to you personally but it happened to someone far more vulnerable allows abuse to flourish.

You miss the point.  It's not that she escaped, but that she doesn't have first-hand knowledge.  Hearing something from the gossip chain is just more words.

Original Quill wrote:But, how do you address rumor and gossip?  Assuming you want to press charges, it’s hearsay if you did not witness it first hand.  Similarly, if you want to speak out, you expose yourself to civil liability without corroboration, made worse if you merely are passing on rumor and gossip.

Syl wrote:You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person  who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Authorities deal in evidence, not in gossip.  There's a unique problem with law: you are dealing, not with the event itself, but with the recreation of the event.  Thus, we have need of rules of evidence, one of which is that we don't accept hearsay.  The authorities would not take anyone seriously who came to them with gossip.

Syl wrote:Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

Big deal.  That and a couple 'o bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Rumor and gossip is like smoke: You reach out to grab it and it and it evaporates.  You treat it as a 'tip' and you still have need of evidence.  You interview the malefactor, and he denies it.  You try to interview the victim, and there's the non-disclosure agreement.  And if that isn't enough, if its rumor and gossip it probably an old story...and the statute of limitations has run.

Syl, you're loaded with the right spirit, but spirit won't get you anywhere.  You need tangible evidence.

The people who were abused by him would have had evidence, obviously the ones who complained were not taken seriously.
Power and money usurp truth even when people are being raped and sexually abused.

Its happened here, it has happened there, difference is I think the people who shrugged their shoulders and turned their eyes away, then applauded the bleeding obvious are arseholes....you look for excuses for them.

Syl wrote:The people who were abused by him would have had evidence, obviously the ones who complained were not taken seriously.

But they are constrained from giving evidence, by the terms of the NDA.

Syl wrote:Power and money usurp truth even when people are being raped and sexually abused.

You've got that right.

Syl wrote:Its happened here, it has happened there, difference is I think the people who shrugged their shoulders and turned their eyes away, then applauded the bleeding obvious are arseholes....you look for excuses for them.

I don't take sides. I'm like a technician, passing along instructions for how it works. I feel sorry for the victims...sorrier still for those who follow up with a reduction of cognitive dissonance.

The Trump case (above) is a classic case of ruthlessness in action. Trump had his sex-fun, then he had to cover it up. He took a two-pronged approach: one, he settles for an undisclosed amount; two, he must cleanse his own reputation by sullying the young woman's reputation. These people are victimized twice, and for life.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The people who were abused by him would have had evidence, obviously the ones who complained were not taken seriously.

But they are constrained from giving evidence, by the terms of the NDA.

Syl wrote:Power and money usurp truth even when people are being raped and sexually abused.

You've got that right.

Syl wrote:Its happened here, it has happened there, difference is I think the people who shrugged their shoulders and turned their eyes away, then applauded the bleeding obvious are arseholes....you look for excuses for them.

I don't take sides.  I'm like a technician, passing along instructions for how it works.  I feel sorry for the victims...sorrier still for those who follow up with a reduction of cognitive dissonance.  

The Trump case (above) is a classic case of ruthlessness in action.  Trump had his sex-fun, then he had to cover it up.  He took a two-pronged approach: one, he settles for an undisclosed amount;  two, he must cleanse his own reputation by sullying the young woman's reputation.  These people are victimized twice, and for life.

Why are you assuming that every victim would have signed a legal document that basically gags them?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But they are constrained from giving evidence, by the terms of the NDA.



You've got that right.



I don't take sides.  I'm like a technician, passing along instructions for how it works.  I feel sorry for the victims...sorrier still for those who follow up with a reduction of cognitive dissonance.  

The Trump case (above) is a classic case of ruthlessness in action.  Trump had his sex-fun, then he had to cover it up.  He took a two-pronged approach: one, he settles for an undisclosed amount;  two, he must cleanse his own reputation by sullying the young woman's reputation.  These people are victimized twice, and for life.

Why are you assuming that every victim would have signed a legal document that basically gags them?

Because, that's how the rich and famous take care of business.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why are you assuming that every victim would have signed a legal document that basically gags them?

Because, that's how the rich and famous take care of business.

But many of the abused were not rich and famous Quill, they were young women just starting out.

More likely the victims were ignored by the powers that be and the ones who had already made it....you know, like the ones who stood up and cheered Oprah, as if she was telling them something they didn't already know. 

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


hang on,,,,none of the parties can talk?  she was meant to give a press conference but she herself suddenly cancelled claiming there were ''threats made against her''  not verified in any way of course, so probably more bollox.  she would have been perfectly safe at a press conference with high security so she had no reason to cancel.

probably paid by the clinton foundation if anyone

Likely, you were watching the negotiation process in real time.  A press conference would make public, for all time, the facts of the case.  That's what forced Trump to settle.  Duh...  By threatening a press conference, Lisa Bloom was doing an outstanding job...holding the feet to the fire, so to speak.

They made up the "threat" story, because that's what publicists do...make up stories.  They were just buying time to complete the settlement.  That's very consistent with Trump, who is known to 'foot-drag' during negotiations.  This is my business...to put on shows for others...juries, public, etc.  Instead of being observant, you are living the show.  You are the sucker being taken for a ride.

If I may, I offer you as the example.  Observe how well it works: you are quite willing to victimize the victim all over again, because you are inside the story that money bought.  You believe the shit.  If you stand back and wake up, you see how insidiously effective it all is.

Now do you see why Trump lies?  It's effective!  Why not?  After a while it affects the mind, and he comes to believe his own crap.

I didn't mean to turn this into a lecture series on how these young girls are victimized, but it's timely and spot-on with the topic.

is there evidence that trump paid her money?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Even without evidence, she could have kept her distance from the scumbag, she didn't.

I don't need proof someone is scum to stay away from them. Do you?

It's not about me.  If it were me, I would have to say I had no knowledge, nor hint that Harvey Weinstein was bedding young actresses.  I wasn't privy to the channels that the gossip was taking.

I have no information that Oprah didn't stay away from Weinstien.  Just because the SAG puts you on the same stage, with several hundred other actors, does not mean you are colluding with him.

And while we are extending the reach of the topic, what do you want to bet the victims in this saga will still vote for Trump (a known child rapist) next time, as they did over Hillary?  Here you are criticizing all these by-standers, when the victims themselves won't participate in a real fix.  At least it shows you how paltry the issue is for them.

It's about your idiotic comments. Who should I blame for the stupid shit you type?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The people who were abused by him would have had evidence, obviously the ones who complained were not taken seriously.

But they are constrained from giving evidence, by the terms of the NDA.

Syl wrote:Power and money usurp truth even when people are being raped and sexually abused.

You've got that right.

Syl wrote:Its happened here, it has happened there, difference is I think the people who shrugged their shoulders and turned their eyes away, then applauded the bleeding obvious are arseholes....you look for excuses for them.

I don't take sides.  I'm like a technician, passing along instructions for how it works.  I feel sorry for the victims...sorrier still for those who follow up with a reduction of cognitive dissonance.  

The Trump case (above) is a classic case of ruthlessness in action.  Trump had his sex-fun, then he had to cover it up.  He took a two-pronged approach: one, he settles for an undisclosed amount;  two, he must cleanse his own reputation by sullying the young woman's reputation.  These people are victimized twice, and for life.

Hahahaha. You're no technician, you're a blabbermouthed bullshitter.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But they are constrained from giving evidence, by the terms of the NDA.



You've got that right.



I don't take sides.  I'm like a technician, passing along instructions for how it works.  I feel sorry for the victims...sorrier still for those who follow up with a reduction of cognitive dissonance.  

The Trump case (above) is a classic case of ruthlessness in action.  Trump had his sex-fun, then he had to cover it up.  He took a two-pronged approach: one, he settles for an undisclosed amount;  two, he must cleanse his own reputation by sullying the young woman's reputation.  These people are victimized twice, and for life.

Hahahaha. You're no technician, you're a blabbermouthed bullshitter.

I should care what you think? Stop and think about the position you are in. Your state of mind is of no consequence to me.

gelico wrote:

nicko wrote:
Thank you Quill,    you should not make serious charges on Forums without including facts to back them up.    You should know that !

the allegation was fabricated

More unsubstantiated pure bullshit gelico pro-Trump fake_news productions...

Typical..