Ed. Note: Harvey Weinstein, the 67-old former Hollywood movie producer, was found guilty today of two of the five criminal counts he was facing in New York Supreme Court. He was found guilty of criminal sexual assault in the first degree for performing oral sex on Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi, a former Production Assistant on “Project Runway” – and one count of rape in the third degree for the rape of hairstylist Jessica Mann.
While few feel any sympathy for Harvey, who seems to have abused many women along the way, one can still be troubled about the due process involved in modern trials. Although Bangkok’s language [below] is a little salty and demeaning, I think the points he raises should be discussed.
This is in response to Harvey Weinstein Convicted on Two Counts: Has Justice Been Served or Did Prosecutors Bend the Rules Again? by K.R. Claviger.
For those who don’t know what Claviger is REALLY saying:
1) Claviger thinks these women were all opportunistic sluts who continued fornicating with Harvey even after the alleged ‘rape’ due to the expectation of career benefits. Thus, how can we trust these women when they claim they were raped?
I happen to agree with him.
2) Claviger thinks that some of these women are not only sluts who wanted it, but also outright liars —— since at least one of them referenced having ‘the best orgasm ever’ from Harvey. Therefore, if the jury buys her ‘rape’ testimony (due to society’s pressure to never disbelieve a female), then the US court system may eventually turn into a Kangaroo court.
I agree with him again. Since ‘up’ cannot mean ‘down’. Black cannot mean white. Water cannot mean sand. Having the best orgasm EVER cannot mean he’s a rapist.
3) Claviger is troubled that too many disgruntled/scorned women were allowed to tell their stories in court simply because they had once fucked Harvey in the past, even though they weren’t a part of the indictments. Thus, he’s troubled that his future clients may not fare very well if judges allow every gal who’s ever fucked a guy to testify against him in court.
I happen to agree with Claviger. Disgruntled/scorned women have an incentive to lie about things in the distant past. Thus, only actual victims of the crimes being charged should be allowed to testify.
4) As a defense attorney, Claviger considers trials to be a ‘game’. Thus, this game should have rules set up to favor the defendant just as our founding fathers agreed. In Claviger’s mind, it’s better to acquit 10 guilty rapists than it is to convict a single innocent man.
I happen to agree with him.
Truth is, Claviger is correct on all counts.
Most of these gals fucked Harvey as a ‘transaction’ to better their careers.
After all, why didn’t these same women get fucked by the local fatboy serving sandwiches at their local deli? I’m sure those losers made more attempts to pick them up than Harvey ever did.
Is that just a coincidence?
They obviously wanted to be with Harvey and injected themselves into his life.
Harvey is a fat old bastard with tons of money, thus a single ‘scream’ or ‘no’ would have gotten him to stop immediately (but would also have negatively impacted their careers).
In other words, these women secretly didn’t want to have sex with Harvey but failed to have the courage to tell him —- but since he can’t read their minds, it’s hardly considered rape. Communication is important.
Thus, these women now ‘regret’ having made bad career decisions (i.e., the decision to fuck a fatman for career advancement). But that’s not necessarily what rape laws were designed to punish.
Claviger is therefore REDEEMED in recognizing these facts.
I support Claivger’s interpretation here. I’m okay with Harvey being convicted cuz he’s an asshole and deserves jail IMO.
But the ‘process’ here is very concerning —– because it will eventually lead to a Kangaroo court system.
Who will stand with me and give accolades to Claviger?