Your Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck Update, With The Ethics Quote Of The Week From Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg

In 2009, after fugitive cinema auteur/child rapist Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police following a request by the U.S. Justice Department that he be extradited to serve his sentence, Harvey Weinstein authored an op-ed arguing  that  “Roman Polanski is a man who cares deeply about his art and its place in the world.” The article dismissed Polanski’s rape and sodomizing of a 13-year-old actress as “a so-called crime.”

 Weinstein then signed am infamous petition for Polanski, along with many Hollywood celebrities.

Last week, Academy Award-winning British actress Emma Thompson appeared on the BBC to  denounce Weinstein’s conduct.  Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis asked her, since she felt so strongly about sexual assault, why she had signed the Polanski petition.

No, I have not heard or read that any U.S. journalist has had the courage or integrity to ask the question of other actresses who have similarly flip-flopped.   Thompson she said she had signed “without really thinking about it . . . I had been absolutely bamboozled by my respect for his art.”

Sure. Emma, that explains it What woman doesn’t sign a “Forgive the rapist” petition without thinking about it?

2.  Hollywood Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg took to Facebook to post a provocative exposition on his early days at Weinstein’s Miramax Films, with a tough kicker: “Everybody fucking knew.” If everybody fucking knew, is it really believable that the Clintons, the Obamas, the other Democrats who gleaned millions from Harvey and Harvey’s connections, and the journalists that never exposed him at the cost of undermining their favorite party didn’t know?

No. It isn’t believable.

Here’s Rosenberg:

So, uh, yeah.
We need to talk about Harvey.

I was there, for a big part of it.
From, what, 1994 to the early 2000s?
Something like that.
Certainly The Golden Age.

Harvey and Bob made my first two movies.
Then they signed me to an overall deal.
Then they bought that horror script of mine about the Ten Plagues.
For a lot of money.
Also bought that werewolf-biker script.
That no one else liked but was my personal favorite.
They were going to publish my novel.
They anointed me.
Made it so other studios thought I was the real deal.
They gave me my career.

I was barely 30.
I was sure I had struck gold.
They loved me, these two brothers, who had reinvented cinema.
And who were fun and tough and didn’t give an East Coast fuck about all the slick pricks out in L.A.

And those glory days in Tribeca?
The old cramped offices?
That wonderful gang of executives and assistants?
All the filmmakers who were doing repeat business?
The brothers wanted to create a “family of film”.
And they did just that…
We looked forward to having meetings there.
Meetings that would turn into plans that would turn into raucous nights out on the town.
Simply put: OG Miramax was a blast.

So, yeah, I was there.
And let me tell you one thing.
Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing:


Not that he was raping.
No, that we never heard.
But we were aware of a certain pattern of overly-aggressive behavior that was rather dreadful.
We knew about the man’s hunger; his fervor; his appetite.
There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm.
All couched in vague promises of potential movie roles.
(and, it should be noted: there were many who actually succumbed to his bulky charms. Willingly. Which surely must have only impelled him to cast his fetid net even wider).

But like I said: everybody-fucking-knew.

And to me, if Harvey’s behavior is the most reprehensible thing one can imagine, a not-so-distant second is the current flood of sanctimonious denial and condemnation that now crashes upon these shores of rectitude in gloppy tides of bullshit righteousness.

Because everybody-fucking-knew.

And do you know how I am sure this is true?
Because I was there.
And I saw you.
And I talked about it with you.
You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers.
And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models.
You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians.

I saw you.
All of you.
God help me, I was there with you.

Again, maybe we didn’t know the degree.
The magnitude of the awfulness.
Not the rapes.
Not the shoving against the wall.
Not the potted-plant fucking.
But we knew something.
We knew something was bubbling under.
Something odious.
Something rotten.

And this is as pathetic as it is true:
What would you have had us do?
Who were we to tell?
The authorities?
What authorities?
The press?
Harvey owned the press.
The Internet?
There was no Internet or reasonable facsimile thereof.
Should we have called the police?
And said what?
Should we have reached out to some fantasy Attorney General Of Movieland?
That didn’t exist.

Not to mention, most of the victims chose not to speak out.
Aside from sharing the grimy details with a close girlfriend or confidante.
And if they discussed it with their representatives?
Agents and managers, who themselves feared The Wrath Of The Big Man?
The agents and managers would tell them to keep it to themselves.
Because who knew the repercussions?
That old saw “You’ll Never Work In This Town Again” came crawling back to putrid life like a re-animated cadaver in a late-night zombie flick.
But, yes, everyone knew someone who had been on the receiving end of lewd advances by him.
Or knew someone who knew someone.

A few actress friends of mine told me stories: of a ghastly hotel meeting; of a repugnant bathrobe-shucking; of a loathsome massage request.
And although they were rattled, they sort of laughed at his arrogance; how he had the temerity to think that simply the sight of his naked, doughy, carbuncled flesh was going to get them in the mood.
So I just believed it to be a grotesque display of power; a dude misreading the room and making a lame-if-vile pass.

It was much easier to believe that.
It was much easier for ALL of us to believe that.


And here’s where the slither meets the slime:
Harvey was showing us the best of times.
He was making our movies.
Throwing the biggest parties.
Taking us to The Golden Globes!
Introducing us to the most amazing people (Meetings with Vice President Gore! Clubbing with Quentin and Uma! Drinks with Salman Rushdie and Ralph Fiennes! Dinners with Mick Jagger and Warren-freaking-Beatty!).

The most epic Oscar weekends.
That seemed to last for weeks!
Sundance! Cannes! Toronto!
Telluride! Berlin! Venice!
Private jets! Stretch limousines! Springsteen shows!
Hell, Harvey once took me to St. Barth’s for Christmas.
For 12 days!
I was a broke-ass kid from Boston who had never even HEARD of St. Barth’s before he booked my travel.
He once got me tickets to the seven hottest Broadway shows in one week. So I could take a new girlfriend on a dazzling tour of theater.
He got me seats on the 40-yard-line to the Super Bowl, when the Patriots were playing the Packers in New Orleans.
Even got me a hotel room, which was impossible to get that weekend.
He gave and gave and gave and gave.
He had a monarch’s volcanic generosity when it came to those within his circle.
And a Mafia don’s fervent need for abject loyalty from his capos and soldiers.

But never mind us!
What about what he was doing for the culture?
Making stunningly splendid films at a time when everyone else was cranking-out simpering “INDEPENDENCE DAY” rip-offs.

It was glorious.
All of it.

So what if he was coming on a little strong to some young models who had moved mountains to get into one of his parties?
So what if he was exposing himself, in five-star hotel rooms, like a cartoon flasher out of “MAD MAGAZINE” (just swap robe for raincoat!)
Who were we to call foul?
Golden Geese don’t come along too often in one’s life.

Which goes back to my original point:
But everybody was just having too good a time.
And doing remarkable work; making remarkable movies.

As the old joke goes:
We needed the eggs.

Okay, maybe we didn’t NEED them.
But we really, really, really, really LIKED them eggs.
So we were willing to overlook what the Golden Goose was up to, in the murky shadows behind the barn…

And for that, I am eternally sorry.
To all of the women that had to suffer this…
I am eternally sorry.
I’ve worked with Mira and Rosanna and Lysette.
I’ve known Rose and Ashley and Claire for years…
Their courage only hangs a lantern on my shame.
And I am eternally sorry to all those who suffered in silence all this time.
And have chosen to remain silent today.

I mostly lost touch with the brothers by the early 2000s.
For no specific reason.
Just that there were other jobs, other studios.
But a few months ago, Harvey called me, out of the blue.
To talk about the bygone days.
To talk about how great it would be to get some of the gang back together.
Make a movie.
He must have known then the noose was tightening.
There was a wistfulness to him that I had never heard before.
A melancholy.
It most assuredly had a walking-to-the-gallows feel.
When we hung up I wondered: “what was that all about?”
In a few short weeks I would know.
It was the condemned man simply wanting to comb some of the ruins of his old stomping grounds.
One last time.

So, yeah, I am sorry.
Sorry and ashamed.
Because, in the end, I was complicit.
I didn’t say shit.
I didn’t do shit.
Harvey was nothing but wonderful to me.
So I reaped the rewards and I kept my mouth shut.
And for that, once again, I am sorry.

But you should be sorry, too.
With all these victims speaking up…
To tell their tales.
Shouldn’t those who witnessed it from the sidelines do the same?
Instead of retreating to the cowardly, canopied confines of faux-outrage?
Doesn’t being a bystander bring with it the responsibility of telling the truth, however personally disgraceful it may be?

You know who are.
You know that you knew.
And do you know how I know that you knew?

Because I was there with you.


And because everybody-fucking-knew.

61 thoughts on “Your Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck Update, With The Ethics Quote Of The Week From Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg

    • Would that really be ethical, though? It would be one thing if Rosenberg knew somebody who actually helped Weinstein hold his victims down, but apart from that,..I dunno, it just seems like empty virtue signaling to throw everybody that could be connected to your sin under the bus to show how repentant you are.

      • I don’t think so. He could certainly say, “I knew,” and leave it at that. By saying everybody knew, he’s implicating everyone in Hollywood, including the literal innocents. He’s also defusing his own level of culpability into the great mass collective guilt. Obviously, if someone was shaken and confided in you then that should not be revealed. But I think gossip with people in the industry can be revealed if it’s directed toward cleaning up the industry.

  1. Though Weinstein is clearly guilty of his wretched conduct, who here thinks his scapegoating (insofar as Hollywood and the larger media complex is dumping ALL their own sin onto him) is not going to lead the rest to clean up their acts. Who thinks business as usual is probably going to continue with only slight abatement with Weinstein driven out of the camp with all their guilt attached to him?

        • Kitty’s rationalization is a variation on #15: “If I don’t do it, somebody else will.” That excuse is usually emplyed to excuse doing something wrong, but it’s also applicable to when someone doesn’t do the right thing by assuming someone else will.

          I think I will add it as 15A. That’s five now I need to add.

          Here are all the rationalizations the Harvey enablers use, after #1 “Everybody Does it.”

          1A. Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it.”.
          6. The Biblical Rationalizations
          “Judge not, lest ye not be judged,”
          “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone
          10. The Unethical Tree in the Forest, or “What they don’t know won’t hurt them.”
          11. The King’s Pass, The Star Syndrome, or “What will we do without him/her?”
          13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”
          15. The Futility Illusion: “If I don’t do it, somebody else will.”
          18. Hamm’s Excuse: “It wasn’t my fault.”
          19. The Perfection Diversion: “Nobody’s Perfect!” or “Everybody makes mistakes!”
          19A The Insidious Confession, or “It wasn’t the best choice.”
          20. The “Just one mistake!”Fantasy
          22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”
          23. Woody’s Excuse: “The heart wants what the heart wants”
          31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now”
          33. The Management Shrug: “Don’t sweat the small stuff!”
          35. The Tortoise’s Pass: “Better late than never”
          36 C. Donald’s Delusion, or “I never said I was perfect!”
          38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!
          42. The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”
          45. The Abuser’s License: “It’s Complicated”
          47. Contrived Consent, or “The Rapist’s Defense.”
          48. Ethics Jiu Jitsu, or “Haters Gonna Hate!
          49. “Convenient Futility,” or “It wouldn’t have mattered if I had done the right thing.
          50. TheApathy Defense, or “Nobody Cares.”
          50A. Narcissist Ethics , or “I don’t care”
          53. Tessio’s Excuse, or “It’s just business”

  2. “Sure. Emma, that explains it What woman doesn’t sign a “Forgive the rapist” petition without thinking about it?”

    Many people sign petitions without thinking about it, as shown on a “Penn and Teller’s Bullshit!” episode where hundreds of people signed a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide without inquiring what it is.

    • Many people eat laundry starch and buy lottery tickets; that doesn’t make the conduct reasonable, excusable or explainable. If a public persona signs a public document, it’s a fair presumption that they knew what they signed.

  3. A screenwriter is going to know a lot more about a producer’s shenanigans than a politician who flys in once a quarter for a fundraiser. Comparing the two is ridiculous and smacks of desperation to try and make this about politics.

    • To quote John McEnroe, “You canNOT be SERIOUS!” Of course this is about politics: Weinstein was a major donor, bundler and host of fundraisers for Hillary and the rest. The Obamas and the Clintons were extremely involved in Hollywood and with Hollywood bigshots and celebs. As I wrote earlier, I had heard rumors about Weinstein years ago. Obama and Clinton didn’t? How much are you willing to spin?

      Here’s Frank Rich:

      “Biggest mystery of @nytimes Weinstein story: How exemplary parents like Obamas let their daughter work there. The stories were out there.”

      Frank is the biggest cheerleader for Democrats there can be, but at least he isn’t trying to ignore the obvious.

      The Clintons and Obamas knew. They had to. At best it was contrived ignorance.

          • Did Hillary Clinton ever work with any of them, or just accept donations? This is not partisan politics. I also excuse those that accepted donations from Roger Ailes — absent knowledge.

                • The political left would never grasp and stoop so low as to use photos of political opponents with “evil” people as propaganda would they Spartan?

                  Of course they would!

                  Half of the political left would be saying that their opponent knew the person was evil and took the money anyway hoping no one would find out and the other half would be saying that if their opponent didn’t know the person was evil then their opponent is completely incompetent and unfit for public office.

                  So Spartan, how is it that this lefty tried-and-true tactic will not work for anti-Clinton propaganda?

                    • Chris wrote, “This is unfair. Spartan is not “the left” and as far as I know she has never engaged in the tactics you describe.”

                      Again Chris, work on your comprehension skills. I did not say or imply that Spartan was “the left” or that Spartan had engaged in the tactics.

                  • What are you babbling about? We aren’t talking about the left or the right here. We are talking about whether a photo like this suggests that the woman has knowledge that the man is a pig. Not the media, not the talking heads, not the spin factory. Normal people — here on this blog.

                    I’ve already stated that I don’t think people who did photos with Roger Ailes should mean anything other than what they purport to be. This is otherwise known as being consistent and fair.

                    • Still Spartan wrote, “What are you babbling about?”


                      Did you hear it, Spartan? Did you hear that loud whoosh from the wind as the point blew over your head?

                      Seriously Spartan, you shouldn’t have replied to my rhetorical comment just like you shouldn’t have replied to the comment with the photo. These are your choices to make.

                    • These condescending, non-responsive comments get us nowhere, Zoltar. If you weren’t implicating Spartan in your comment about “the left” then it was a pointless comment. You often make unclear comments and then when people ask for clarification, you refuse to provide it and simply respond with insults.

                    • Chris wrote, “These condescending, non-responsive comments get us nowhere, Zoltar. “

                      You mean like this idiotic comment from you that I’m compelled to reply to. Let’s see if you can put your brain in gear and follow along Chris.

                      My comment above at October 18, 2017 at 9:51 am was not condescending, it was a form of a rationalization to make a point; it was a rhetorical comment about “grasping” and wasn’t posted to get a reply.

                      By the way do you know that Spartan’s reply to my comment started off the condescension between her and I, to which I replied in kind.

                      I was condescending about your poor comprehension skills when I replied to your October 18, 2017 at 10:04 am comment where you misrepresented me again with your usual obtuseness. I’m fed u p with your continued obtuseness and I’ll not apologize for the earned condescension.

                      I really have no idea what you are trying to say when you wrote “non-responsive”, care to explain what you’re trying to say?

                      By the way Chris; your obtuse comments laced with misrepresentations of others get us nowhere, but you continue to post them day after day, are you expecting different results?

                      Chris wrote, “If you weren’t implicating Spartan in your comment about “the left” then it was a pointless comment.”

                      This is not even close to being logical and it’s not even reasonable, it’s just idiotic “reasoning”. Me making a point was/is not dependent upon implicating Spartan about anything and certainly not dependent upon implicating Spartan about “the left”. This claim from you is utter nonsense.

                      By the way my comment at October 18, 2017 at 9:51 am wasn’t pointless Chris, but it comes as no surprise that you, of all people, are oblivious.

                      Chris wrote, “You often make unclear comments and then when people ask for clarification, you refuse to provide it and simply respond with insults.”

                      Now that’s not exactly true, now is it Chris. You are called out over and over again because your comprehension sucks. My comment above on October 18, 2017 at 9:51 am was pretty darn clear, well maybe not for someone with comprehension skills that cause their first reaction to the comment as being a misrepresentation of the comment.

                      Now Chris, please remember that it’s your choice if and how you reply to others. It’s reasonable for me to expect that you would learn how to make better choices but your replies have shown that you’re not effectively learning this skill.

                • You are in denial. Here, read this:

                  Thompson is a bona fide, Bill and Hillary confidante and Hollywood ally, and has been for decades. She says she told Democratic operatives abour Weinstein, and it strains credulity that she wouldn’t tell her pal, Hillary, just as it strains logic to think the operatives wouldn’t tip off the party brass.

                  Hillary was perfectly happy to be in bed with a predator like Weinstein if it would achieve her goals\, just like she was with Bill. This isn’t even a matter of conjecture. It’s obvious, except to those who refuse to accept how corrupt and ruthless an withut integrity this woman is.

              • Here is my interpretation of what’s happening in that photo…

                Weinstein is saying look what I can get away with (but don’t take my photo while I’m doing it) as he grabs Clinton’s pussy and Clinton is pushing him away. 😉

        • I’d also like to know when this new standard that politicians should not accept donations from bad people emerged, and why I only ever seem to see that standard applied to the Left.

          • I don’t agree with that standard, and specifically rejected it in the last “dirty money” post.

            Weinstein was more than a donor. Anyone can write a check, The Clinton, Democrats and Obama were in BED with the man, and he used their public association for his own benefit and to protect him from being exposed.

            That was an unusually gross example of distorting the issue, Chris. From The American Thinker today:

            “Hollywood was a major funder of both the Clinton and Obama political machines, and many a Hollywood star defended Bill Clinton’s sordid activities as a personal matter as long as he was doing a good job as President. They similarly defended Weinstein as Michelle Obama once did, as a “wonderful human being”, as well as “a good friend and just a powerhouse” Both the Obamas and Clintons knew Weinstein well and neither should be given a pass for feigning ignorance and shock at his activities:

            None other than CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on Tuesday evening that former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama should not get a “pass” on Harvey Weinstein.

            In fact, Toobin said their association with Weinstein throughout the years is a “dark mark on their record.”

            “I don’t think we can give the Clintons and the Obamas a pass here,” Toobin said on Anderson Cooper 360. He cited Seth MacFarlane’s creepy joke about Weinstein at an Oscars event and added that MacFarlane’s joke illustrated that “a lot of people knew or had very strong suspicions that this was a very bad guy.”

            “The Obamas and the Clintons embraced him, did fundraisers with him, paid tribute to him,” Toobin continued. “I think it’s a dark mark on their record…”

            The Obamas also finally said on record that they were “disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein.”

            “Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” the Obamas said in a statement. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status. We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories. And we all need to build a culture — including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect — so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future…”

            Weinstein visited the White House at least 13 Times, and Malia just completed an internship with The Weinstein company.

            • Doesn’t Malia prove my point? The Obamas didn’t need power or influence in their second term. No sane parent sends a teenage daughter to work with sexual predators. And I don’t think the Obamas are insane.

              • The question of what the hell was going on there is unanswered. 1) They had no idea. 2) They sent Malia with the precaution of someone making it very clear that she had better be left alone. 3) The knew she’s not Harvey’s type. 4) They were negligent and naive beyond belief. 5)They knew even a sick bastard like Weinstein wasn’t so insane as to harass the teenage daughter of the President of the United States. 6) They knew her position would have no contact with Malia at all, just as Presidents never really have any contact with White House in…oh. Right. Never mind.

                I vote #5. You?

          • Chris wrote, “why I only ever seem to see that standard applied to the Left.”

            Chris your an idiot for writing that.

            You mean to tell me that Chris somehow never saw (or conveniently forgot for the purposes of smearing the political right in this conversation) that there were White Nationalist Leaders, you know white racists, that donated money to the Trump campaign and Trump was endlessly smeared for it and Trump was called a racist because of it? There are real consequences to wearing industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders #Corneilus_Gotchberg.

            This claim by Chris is not credible; Chris is lying through his partisan teeth.

            Maybe the political right should use the same smearing standards that the political left uses and call Hillary Clinton a rapist because Weinstein donated money to her campaign.

      • And how culpable is somebody for “hearing a rumor”? That seem several steps removed from the first-hand accounts that Rosenburg talks about.

        Let’s say you’re rubbing shoulders with somebody like Weinstein, and they harass/assault you personally. Obviously the ethical thing to do is stay away from them and inform whoever has the power to stop them. If somebody you know and trust tells you he went after THEM, again, you want to get them away and report the Weinstein.

        But what if it’s a second-or-more hand account? “So-and-so told me that Weinstein exposed himself?” or “You know what people are saying about Weinstein?” What is your ethical obligation in these circumstances?

        • As a public servant being obligated to the duty of trust, you have a responsibility to investigate and vet people you closely associate with publicly, because you will be perceived as endorsing or at least tolerating their values.

          Of course, in Hillary’s case, having already clarified that she will accept the values of a serial sexual predator to advance her political ambitions, accepting the values of TWO such individuals isn’t that great a leap.

            • Of course she does. Are you kidding? Clinton has boasted of hundreds of sexual affairs. Hillary participated in the obstruction of accusations by at least six women, plus the Monica mess. There is substantial reason to beieve that Hillary and Bill always have had a marriage that permitted Bill to do what he does, and that this was an alliance rather than a romance from the start. Two of my close friends who worked for Clinton in Arkansas told me during Bill’s term that Hillary was gay, or maybe bi- (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I assume that eventually that story will come out, and all will be a bit clearer. I thought it would come out during the campaign.

              • Clinton has boasted of hundreds of sexual affairs.

                I’ve heard a lot of allegations against Clinton, and this is a new one for me. Where and when did Clinton do all this “boasting?” I have heard Trump boast of sexual affairs (though not “hundreds”), but I’ve never seen Clinton do the same. (Side note: Is Trump a serial sexual predator?)

                Hillary participated in the obstruction of accusations by at least six women, plus the Monica mess.

                I’d also like evidence for this. Here’s Politifact’s take:


                Yes, they are biased, like every source; I’m interested in hearing how they are wrong. I see no evidence of “obstruction,” in either the legal sense (which I assume you are not using) or an ethical one. I also don’t know who the “six women” are supposed to be; only three have ever publicly accused Clinton of misconduct, while others have said they had consensual affairs with him. We’ve discussed this before, but I don’t believe consensual sex, even with an underling, makes one a “sexual predator.” That doesn’t make his affair with Lewinski anywhere close to ethical, but it *was* consensual.

                • My field, Chris. In sexual harassment ethics, any male with significant power imbalance who uses that power to proposition and seduce women is, in fact, a predator, and the consent you allude to is acting under coercion. Two beauty queens who had realtions with Clinton while he was governor, Willey, Jones, and Broaddrick, and Monica, who was low level subordinate, and her relationship would be treated as sexual harassment in any company in America. That’s six.

                  As for Bill’s boasting, I am less certain. On one hand, I recalled reading about this, and I think it was here:

                  Former Dallas lawyer Dolly Kyle, who says she had a long-running affair with Bill Clinton, has spilled the beans about what she says she knows about the Clintons in a tell-all book and in recent interviews.

                  Kyle claimed in a recent interview with this reporter that “Billy” Clinton, as she called him, once boasted to her that he had had sex with about 2,000 women. She described Clinton as a “sex addict” who has some “sick, sick need” to “control women.”

                  And speaking on this past Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 with host Stephen K. Bannon, Kyle said Clinton was a “sex addict.”

                  “We went through the 25 questions that you ask yourself if you’re a sex addict,” Kyle said. “He absolutely was. Is. He admitted it. This is like an Alcoholics Anonymous or drug-addict thing. You don’t have to go to a counselor to know you’re an alcoholic. You go to an AA meeting, you hear the questions, you know that’s who you are. And then you do something about it. But he’s done nothing about it.”

                  Assuming this was the source, she said 2000, not a mere “hundreds.” On the other hand, this was Breitbart, and I don’t trust Breitbart. But Bill is clearly a sex addict, and I roomed with one once. My ex-room mate had sex with 20 women that I knew of just during a single school year, and he wasn’t a governor. I remember him telling me he was over a hundred when I knew him, and that was when he was 22. A sex addict like Bill having “hundreds” isn’t that extreme, if you think about it. Do sex addicts boast? Sure they do.

                  • You didn’t really show how Hillary “obstructed” any of those women’s accusations.

                    Breitbart’s credibilty isn’t really the issue there; Dolly Kyle’s is. I find some of the statements she’s made so over the top as to be unbelievable; she claims that she overheard Hillary Clinton use anti-Semitic slurs and call disabled kids “fucking retards,” and that both her and her husband frequently referred to blacks using the n-word. All of this as well as the allegations about their sexualities could be true, but that’s not a lot to hang a case on. If Bill really did boast to her that he had sex with over 2,000 women, “sex addict” could be accurate, but we have no idea if Kyle is telling the truth. And a man who has several affairs isn’t necessarily a sex addict; that is an actual diagnosis that requires more than just lots of sexual partners.

                    I have a problem conflating the allegations against Bill Clinton with the allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton has been accused of rape by exactly one woman and sexual assault by exactly one other; Weinstein’s accusers are far more numerous. Aside from the affairs, only one other woman has accused Clinton of sexual harassment.

                    What makes the accusations against Weinstein so believable is that so many women are telling exactly the same story; the same is true in the Cosby case. Of course that does NOT mean Clinton’s accusers are lying, and I make no judgment about their credibility; but there is a certainty to the allegations against Weinstein and Cosby that is simply missing with Clinton. I am comfortable stating as a fact that Cosby and Weinstein are rapists. I am not comfortable stating the same about Clinton.

                    And of course, even though I phrased my question about Trump as a side note, I hope you will answer it. It really is worthy of being more than just a side note. If all the allegations against Clinton are true, there’s not much that can be done about it. Maybe he was a horrible sexual abuser and rapist and we should have never elected him to higher office. But that possibility exists with *our current president,* something that is brought up here on Ethics Alarms with much less frequency than the allegations against Clinton. Why aren’t we expending our energy discussing the current possible-rapist-in-chief instead of relitigating the Clintons’ baggage? Wouldn’t it have been better if Democrats hadn’t ignored a possible sexual predator in the White House back when the potential predator was Clinton? If so, then shouldn’t we be equally concerned with the possibility that our current president may be a sexual predator?

                    • Broaddrick said Hillary threatened her. Many accounts have Hillary helping the “bimbo outbreak squad” strategize. If her lying interview to Matt Lauer about the Lewinski scandal being manufactured by a vast right wing conspiracy when the timeline shows she knew at the time about Bill and Monica wasn’t obstruction, what would you call it?

                      This isn’t really a matter of legitimate controversy.I had no idea you were this blinded by denial.

                      The issue is hypocrites and ruthless opportunists among pandering, grandstanding, cynical celebrities and politicians enabling and using sexual predators while posturing as women’s rights champions and sensitive, caring, victim-centered progressives. That has nothing to do with Trump, except in the “Oh, yeah? Well, what about HIM?” deflection, Rationalization #22. Nobody voted for Trump, or supported him, claiming that he’s a friend and ally of women, an advocate for victims of assault. Nobody. He’s never pretended to be anything but a sexist, a pig and a misogynist.

                    • Ok. So you are saying a double standard exists.

                      Now what?

                      You say the issue is hypocrisy, but I would think sexual abuse and harassment is a more important issue than hypocrisy.

                      Either it matters that a potential sexual predator is in the White House, or it doesn’t. You are trying to tell me that it makes perfect sense to spend ten times more words and bandwidth discussing a potential sexual predator that used to be in the White House than a potential sexual predator that is in the White House. This is nonsensical.

                      You can say that Democrats shouldn’t have supported Bill Clinton due to his treatment of women until the cows come home. I’m not even disagreeing with you on that point; I’ve merely asked for more evidence, and been unimpressed by what you’ve provided. But let’s say you’re right: Bill Clinton was a sexual predator. Now what? Do we say “Let’s hold all sexual predators accountable, take accusations seriously, and not let a man’s power blind us to his abuse of women?” Or do we say “Well, it doesn’t really matter because this one doesn’t claim to be a feminist?”

                    • Of course sexual harassment is a more important issue, as are many things. But every harasser raises the sexua harassment issue—there’s nothing special about Weinstein except the degree to which he was tolerated and enabled and lionized by the very same people he abused and who claimed to be the champions of victims of sexual assault. They were bought off. That IS the story, and the lesson. Stop trying to change the subject. That lesson needs to be learned, and not avoided because it’s unpleasant.

                    • If you are going to constantly call Bill Clinton a “sexual predator”–and really, I can’t remember the last time you brought up Bill without that description–then asking you if Trump fits the same description is not “changing the subject.” It is asking you to be consistent.

                      I really don’t know why you won’t answer the question.

                      Again, perhaps you are right that Democrats should have done something about the multiple allegations against Clinton. But you can do something about the allegations against Trump *right now,* and you are choosing not to.


                    • Because it’s not relevant to the issue. You are just trying ti change the subject.

                      …and, while I have no doubt that Trump has engaged in sexual harassment in the past, and he is a proven misogynist, there is zero proof that he is a sexual predator. The Jones case and Lewinsky are solid evidence against Clinton.

                    • I’m stunned.

                      So one sexual harassment allegation by Paula Jones and one consensual affair with Monica Lewinski is solid evidence that Clinton is a sexual predator…

                      But allegations of sexual assault and harassment by 15 women against Trump isn’t solid evidence that Trump is a sexual predator.

                      This is nonsense, Jack.

                  • Jack — your rule is aspirational only in most cases. Every law firm in this country has senior partners whose second wives are young associates. The same holds true in other companies. I’m not saying that your rule is a bad one, but you are puffing it up a bit. Most courts would not agree with you — assuming there is consent of course.

                    • I think that’s fair.
                      But those partners are still exploiting their power. They just found someone to say yes. You know that old joke abut the little ugly guy who keeps whispering to women who come into the bar and they keep beating them up?

                      Vertical dating in the workplace is a pre-unethical condition. I tell my clients to forbid it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.