Bloom Out As Weinstein Adviser Amidst Questions Over Conflicts and Tactics

641cb0dc-9146-4fff-9965-534a6bcd4b2eFeminist attorney Lisa Bloom is under fire from all sides over her work on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, a producer who is accused of breathtaking attacks of sexual harassment against those under his control or influence.  Much of the criticism has accused Bloom as well as Clinton advisors like Lanny Davis.  However, there appears to have been push back from her actual clients at the Weinstein company, particularly after Bloom’s television appearances where she seemed to struggle with defending Weinstein.  Bloom called Weinstein “an old dinosaur learning new ways,” as if calling women to your room in a bathroom and demanded massages was an acceptable old way in the last two centuries.  Bloom also said publicly that her media client engaged in “illegal” conduct — a surprising admission for someone serving as a spokesperson who happens to be a lawyer.  Critics raised the hypocrisy in Bloom’s past attacks on accused harassers and her awkward defense of Weinstein.  Now reports suggest that company board members raised not only a possible conflict of interest in the case but some remarkably ill-conceived advice from Bloom in managing the scandal.  Weinstein himself was fired yesterday.  Bloom has responded to conflict issues raised in her Weinstein contracts by distinguishing legal from non-legal conflicts of interests.

I previously criticized Bloom over her staging of a disastrous press conference for her client Kathy Gifford. Bloom’s work with Weinstein could be worse.  Two board members reportedly pushed for the company to sever Bloom as an advisor:  Weinstein’s brother, Bob Weinstein and Lance Maerov.

Bloom sent an email to board members that outlined her plan to manage the scandal for Weinstein in securing “more and different reporting.”  Most notably, this included “photos of several of the accusers in very friendly poses with Harvey after his alleged misconduct.”  That is a standard tactic in sexual harassment cases by the defense to undermine the credibility of accusers.  Maerov correctly noted that Bloom’s approach would succeed in only “fanning the flames and compounding the problem.”  He further noted that “publishing pictures of victims in friendly poses with Harvey will backfire as it suggests they are exculpatory or negate any harm done to them through alleged actions.” He also raised Bloom’s arrangement with Weinstein to turn one of her books into a television series: “You have a commercial relationship with TWC via a TV deal so how can you possibly provide impartial advice to Harvey or address this group with any credibility?” He apparently asked that she sever ties with the company.

Bob Weinstein fired off an angry email after Bloom appeared on “Good Morning America.” He pointed out that the situation was getting worse and worse under Bloom’s strategy and “It is my opinion, that u are giving your client poor counsel. Perhaps, Harvey as he stated in the NY Times, to the world, should get professional help for a problem that really exists.”

The board took action to order an independent investigation and shortly thereafter Bloom resigned and posted this on twitter:  “I have resigned as an advisor to Harvey Weinstein,. My understanding is that Mr. Weinstein and his board are moving toward an agreement.”  Later he was fired.

Bloom has insisted that she personally “did not release photos of accusers” to the press, but did not deny pushing that strategy. She also denied that her work with Mr. Weinstein created a conflict of interest, but narrowly construed the question as a legal conflict of interest: “A conflict is representing two different sides in the same case.”

It is certainly true that there is no ethical code or disciplinary body for “media advisers” as opposed to lawyers.  However, Bloom’s often awkward defense of Weinstein will continue to raise questions in light of her hope for a television series.  It is not a question of liability but credibility.

112 thoughts on “Bloom Out As Weinstein Adviser Amidst Questions Over Conflicts and Tactics”

  1. Zionist “Casting Couch” Harvey Weinstein and his Whores
    It has been said this type of situation is worse with Zionist “Grab ’em by the Pussy” Trump

    Former dean of the Washington press corps, Helen Thomas said, “Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists.

    The Courageous Legacy of Journalist Helen Thomas: ‘Zionists go home!’

    ‘Helen Thomas paid a heavy price for speaking the truth. The Zionist-dominated mainstream media launched a witch hunt. Thomas was viciously slandered, dropped by her agency, rebuked by the journalists’ associations, and forced to resign from Hearst Newspapers. Yet nobody has ever managed to explain why her remarks were wrong.’

    In the USA today, speaking out against the evils of Zionism is career suicide.

    The Israel lobby has destroyed the careers of several of the greatest U.S. Senators and Representatives of the 20th century, including William Fulbright, Mike Gravel, Charles Percy, James Abourezk, Paul Findley, Cynthia McKinney, Pete McCloskey, Earl Hilliard, Roger Jepsen, and James Trafficant. Even former President Jimmy Carter has been viciously slandered and sued by pro-Israel fanatics.

    Helen Thomas, the dean of the Washington press corps, spent her career watching the Israel lobby destroy Palestine—and American democracy. Finally, in June 2010, she could no longer hide her disgust with Zionism. When a radical Zionist rabbi shoved a camera in her face and pushily demanded that she say something to the Jews of Israel, Thomas responded with these immortal words:

    “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine … they should go home to Poland or Germany or America or anywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?”

    Thomas pithily explained what happened: “I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive.”

    The Zionists tried to make Thomas back down. But she refused, saying: “Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion. I paid a price, but it’s worth it to speak the truth.”

    She later defended those remarks, saying: “I just think that people should be enlightened as to who is in charge of the opinion in this country.”

    Virtually the entire population of the Middle East agrees with Helen Thomas: The Zionist invaders should leave Palestine and go home to wherever they came from. Why is this view unacceptable in the USA?

    Because it is true and inarguable.

    There is no legitimate argument for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.

    Zionist Jews claim that Palestine is their holy land. But Christians and Muslims also claim Palestine as their own holy land. Why should one religion have special rights—especially a religion that represents a minuscule fraction of the followers of Abraham? After all, more than half the population of the world is either Christian or Muslim. Jews are only about one-fifth of one percent of the world’s people.

    That means that for every 250 followers of Abraham, only one of them is Jewish. And that one may not even be a Zionist! Clearly, the holy land should belong to all of the followers of Abraham, not just the tiny number who stubbornly reject the prophetic missions of Jesus and Muhammad, peace upon them both, and insist on perpetrating genocide in the land that is sacred to all of the more than three and one-half billion followers of Abrahamic monotheism.

    And Palestine should also belong to the Palestinian people, whatever their religion, since their ancestors have been living there continuously for many centuries.

    The Zionists claim to be descended from people who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago. That claim has been proven false by genetic and historical studies. But even if it were true, what gives a group of people the right to invade, occupy, and ethnically cleanse someone else’s country, just because the invaders’ ancestors supposedly once lived there? Should the Native Americans, who came from Asia, invade, occupy, and ethnically cleanse China and India? The whole idea is ludicrous.

    The Zionists say that because Jews have always suffered persecution, the world must give them anything they want. They invoke the Nazi holocaust to excuse their holocaust in Palestine. But it was the Germans, not the Palestinians, who persecuted Jews during World War II. If the “holocaust” argument is correct, the Zionists must leave Palestine and put their “Jewish state” in Germany.

    The utter and complete illegitimacy of Zionism and its phony state “Israel” is the elephant in the living room—the elephant that no-one in the Zionist-dominated West is allowed to mention.

    In the lands dominated by Zionism, including the USA, you are allowed to deplore Israeli human rights abuses. You are allowed to support a pathetic and powerless “Palestinian state.” You are allowed to say that Israel must return to its 1967 borders. If you are lucky, you might even get away with supporting the Palestinians’ right of return.

    But you must never, ever mention the truth of the matter: That “Israel” does not have one shred of legitimacy … and that in the name of truth, justice, and decency, every Zionist invader of Palestine must go home and leave Palestine to the Palestinians.

    Helen Thomas spoke that truth courageously, forcefully and brilliantly. Her immortal words sum up the reality of the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict with trenchant eloquence.

    “Zionists, get the hell out of Palestine.”

    Those words ring out today as the epitaph of one of America’s greatest journalists … and tomorrow as the epitaph of Zionism itself.

    (Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. His website is
    To whom it may concern;

    I am wanting to sue WXII-TV for years of fraudulent news reporting

    Are you interested in the case? Know anyone interested?

    Winston-Salem, NC: WXII-TV is an Accomplice to the Zionist Controlled Hearst Corporation War Crimes.
    WXII-TV is complicit in Cover-up & Propaganda for many years in the murders of the illegal U.S. / Israeli Wars & 9/11.
    The most powerful form of lie is the omission — George Orwell
    The Hearst Corporation (WXII) Lies in Omission of Truth
    According to U.S. and International Law all the U.S. / Israeli invasions are Wars of Aggression, War Crimes.
    These are the same crimes the Nazis committed
    Millions of men, women and children have been murdered / maimed due to these invasions.
    Washington, DC = Nazi Berlin
    The Local and National Media are Zionist Liars
    The Hearst Corporation (WXII) have committed War Crimes. They do not deserve to be called journalists.
    They are War Criminals as chief propagandist for the Nazis, Joseph Goebbels

    Danny Vestal
    (336) 727-3765

    1. Patriot – you are aware that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was offered the chance of a Palestine homeland with distinctive borders, but so hated the Jews that he refused to accept it. For him, it was all or nothing. It end up being nothing for him.

        1. Patriot – it is a right of passage for Palestinian boys to throw rocks at the Israeli military. I would say most are either active or complicit participant in violence against Israel.

  2. Scrolling through the comments quickly, I did not notice anyone who cut to the quick about stories like this:

    It’s about the money, honey.

    Why is it that the newspaper story about Mr. Weinstein was not run until last week, even though he stands accused of engaging in this type of behavior for a long time? Why didn’t Weinstein get canned previously?

    Why is it that many allegations about similar behavior by certain persons associated with Fox remained “undercover” for so long? Why didn’t these people become disassociated from Fox earlier?

    Was it that someone realized that this type of conduct was wrong and should not be tolerated and then stood on moral principles?

    Or was it that, before now, the entities and people associated with the alleged wrongdoers could no longer ignore the allegations because the cost of keeping the alleged wrongdoers around became greater than the revenue they generated?

    It’s about the money, honey.

  3. The truth about Hollywood and the ancillary, celebrity-chasing purveyors of law is almost as disgusting, immoral and revealing as the truth about the Clintons and the anti-American activities of the Obama gang. Wait, given the voluminous Hollywood fund-raising events, they may be one and the same swamp.

  4. Let’s see, JT. . .you seem to be shocked. . .shocked, I tell ya. . .by Bloom’s decision to represent Weinstein. Right now, all that exist are allegations. Nothing more. The term, casting couch, wasn’t suddenly created when Weinstein appeared on the scene. The concept, both in theory and in practice, has existed for as long as any form of theater or entertainment has been around, where both men and women have traded sexual favors for a chance at stardom. The big time. The limelight. This is not, by any means, an attempt to excuse or justify the allegations, if proven to be true, that Weinstein cashed in on sexual favors and traded them for opportunities in Hollywood. It just asserts that this behavior, however repugnant, has been transpiring for years and years. Where did the presumption of innocence go? Did it evaporate into thin air? And, please, could someone. . .anyone. . .explain why did these actresses waited for decades to suddenly arrive at this epiphany? To suddenly awake, from their respective comas, where they could declare that Weinstein traded favors for advancement in Hollywood? Wow. Shocker. Sex is traded for all sorts of favors in this world, and you may not get anywhere in Hollywood without doing a few people some favors while on your knees. Say it ain’t so. You could’ve knocked me over with a feather.

    Tell us, JT. . .just how many unsavory characters and groups have you defended during your legal career? Characters and groups, that are, repugnant, at best, but you believed that they deserved representation. That they deserved a defense. Are we to associate you with every vile and reprehensible group or cause that you have defended? If not, why is Bloom the subject of such venom? By the way, I don’t personally care for her, whatsoever, but how about a little consistency?

    True story. A very close family relative, born and raised in St. Louis, was friends with Betty Grable, who also lived her for a portion of her life. The two women were fasr friends, and they danced together, on stage, here in St. Louis, before Betty Grable made the move to Hollywood. My relative was stunningly beautiful and immensely talented–truly, a beauty and talent which dwarfed those possessed by Grable–and when Betty Grable asked her whether or not she would be willing to move with her, to Hollywood, to pursue a career in the entertainment industry, my relative was giddy with excitement and anticipation. She was young, naive and unaware of just how difficult breaking into Hollywood would be. Her parents, however, were not so young or naive. While they did not refuse to permit their beloved daughter from pursuing her dreams, they advised her, in no uncertain terms, that the life of a starlet, in Holkywood, was, in their opinion, an unsavory one. A life where the family unit and the values, upon which she was raised, were not appreciated or respected. That’s going back some 70 or 80 years ago. What has changed?

    1. Nearly 90 years ago. Grable’s first film performance was in 1929. Her first screen credit was in 1931.

      I think performers have been considered sketchy characters forever. There have been class acts among them, though (e.g Rosalind Russell, Jimmy Stewart).

      1. SOT – historically female actors were considered prostitutes, hence during Shakespeare’s time, all female roles were played by boys. It isn’t until Charles II returns to the British throne from France that females are invited on the stage. For the French, women were always on the stage and playwrights like Moliere wrote great parts for his wife and daughter who were in his acting company.

  5. To steal a line from Christopher Caldwell, one does get the impression that Hollywood is thick with people best described as “American nightmares, a combination of zero brains, infinite appetites and infinite self-esteem, who are (for that reason) able to run roughshod over others”.

  6. Jonathan Turley wrote: “I previously criticized Bloom over her staging of a disastrous press conference for her client Kathy Gifford.”

    Kathy Griffin, not Kathy Gifford.

    Karen, did you write this posting for Jonathan? : )

    1. According to the Trump defenders, all his accusers are liars and that includes the ones represented by Ms. Bloom.

      1. No, according to Trump defenders, people accusing Trump have to provide evidence for their claims if they’re to be taken seriously.

  7. Which this goes to prove my point that sooo many “activists” are really just Democrats in Disguise, pushing the DNC narrative. Like Al Sharpton or Maxine “Watermelon” Waters or Meryl “Obstreperous” Streep, who is only obstreperous when it comes to Republicans. Bullsh*t that she didn’t know about this behavior! Then, there is the SNL cast:

    I guess they will have to wait until the OK is given by the DNC to say bad things about Weinstein.

  8. Weinstein — noun, FOB, FOH (Hillary) Yiddish for do as I say, produce, and politicize — not as I do.

    Sometimes definitions help.

  9. What is also interesting is Trump’s (the groper in chief) comments on Weinstein, that he was not surprised, knowing Weinstein. This is the height of hypocrisy, once again surpassed by Trump. They probably used to go out groping together.

    1. Harvey and da Donald attacked the ladies on the casting couch. One got fired and one got elected.

  10. A lawyer is “legally” ethical in representing “guilty” people. But if you were a sexually harassed woman would you want Bloom to represent you? The question of whether she was giving Weinstein good and objective legal advice is another matter. Was she tailoring her advice to push back in order to tell him what he wanted to hear because she wanted his approval of the story she was trying to sell him? That would just be bad lawyering. Finally, I guess she will have to apologize on bended knee to mom. Don’t you hate it when your children misbehave?

  11. Does no one see the irony/hypocrisy in Donald Trump attacking Harvey Weinstein regarding sexual harassment charges? All while year anniversary videos of Trump were circulating the media.

    1. enigma – we should be running the “bimbo eruptions” of Bill Clinton.

          1. To jump on the bandwagon would be one reason. If he did so he would and should be open to criticism for doing so.

            Different question, since nobody really answered the first one. Are the elected Republican officials that demanded Democrats give back any Weinstein donations concerned at all about not distancing themselves from Trump. Of course , some of them did, for periods ranging from a few days to a few months. Then their pragmatism overcame their moral superiority.

          2. SOT – last I heard, the DNC had returned 30k of the 225k Weinstein had given them. No word yet from the Clintons.

            1. Paul, you and I both know that if the DNC were to return all of the money that it received from any assortment of sexual deviants, their coffers would run dry.

                1. Yup, some say they are returning the money, but all the Dems are doing is giving it back to themselves. No questions asked.

                  Also, not a word from Barack or Michelle Obama about their pal Harvey who hung out with them at the White House more than a dozen times. How much you want to bet the media let’s them get away with not commenting at all? That way Barack Obama’s name and comments are never tied to this scandalous story. See how the double standard works?

                  Hillary will get away with not commenting too. They’re all in it together.

                  1. Besides, we know Barack Obama will say that he learned about the scandal from the news reports just like everybody else.

                    1. And remember, Obama’s close pal Jay-Z is in the middle of making a deal to produce a TV mini-series about Trayvon Martin with Harvey Weinstein – so you know Obama knows nothing about any of this. Not.

    2. where did you see that Trump “attacked” Weinstein? By replying to a question from the press with “doesn’t surprise me?” Is that now construed as an “attack”?

      And for the record, simply admitting, as Trump did, to what ‘groupies’ will allow you to do just to hobnob with the rich and famous (as they have done since the beginning of time) is just speaking the truth. Feigning horror over that was always fake news and opportunistic. Real world men AND women just laughed at that video………apparently we re not as prudish as the ‘anything goes’ liberal crowd.

    3. But what about Weinstein’s behavior? And the fact that EVERYONE knew he at best was a pervert, more realistically Weinstein was about a half-step from being a registered sex offender. Yet no one said anything until what? Why did they decide to out him right now? And who else are they hiding (read Streep’s press release)?

      1. I have no problem discussing or acknowledging what I know of Weinstein’s behavior. I can’t speak for what “everyone” knew. Apparently, many that did, particularly the women, were bound by confidentiality arrangements or fear their careers ould be destroyed. He appears to have abused his power and there are likely many incidents of which we have no knowledge. His explanations to date are not acceptable and he deserves everything that’s coming to him.

        Now that I’ve answered your questions. What about Trump? The allegations against him are no less disgusting including rape of a minor and admitting to sexually assaulting women. How is he any better?

        1. Can anyone enlighten me as to the workings of these ‘confidentiality agreements”? They seem to me to be outright attempts to obstruct justice as they purchase the complainant’s agreement not to disclose their victimization to the police.

            1. No, that’s not how this works. We don’t merely toss rhetorical molatovs and presume that because they are inflammatory they have value. We define our allegations with sources. But let’s shove all that to the side for a moment and agree that:

              – It’s an issue that it took the woman that would’ve been POTUS 6 DAYS to construct a postion about Weinstein.

              1. Somebody, please enlighten Andrew about the allegations against Trump. Feel free to call them unsubstantiated ad note that no charges have been filed. But to deny that they exist is ludicrous. How it doesn’t work Andrew, is that I have to document widely known and readily available information because you amazingly aren’t aware and won’t bother to look for yourself. BTW, Hillary’s response took 4 days, which is only an issue because you want it to be.

  12. “It is certainly true that there is no ethical code…
    With these individuals it wouldn’t matter. The wicked and the wretched have no sense of Honor and have no interest in improving that condition. Their punishment should be being relegated into a cloister of each other.

    1. I’m recalling the wag who remarked that screenwriters tend to portray ordinary corporation executives as very corrupt because screenwriters are used to dealing with studio executives, who really are very corrupt.

      Recall Bill Maher on the recording industry: “Record executives are in that trade because they lack the people skills to be pimps:”.

      1. That brings forth an interesting situation. Let’s say a particularly gifted screenwriter was bitterly aggrieved by an executive. The writer crafts what critics and potential viewer samplings show will become a major motion picture that will be among the top ranking for that year. The nemesis in the film is only a thinly veiled version of the executive, and it is obvious to anyone on the inside who it is.

        Would the executive approve the production of the film that made him look like a consummate jackass in the eyes of the public and uplift the screenwriter to an Oscar winning pedestal in the process or just sit back, shut up, and rake in a pile of money?

  13. “I am woman, hear me not roar, because I calculated it’s to my career advantage not to roar even if it means sacrificing some sisters along the way.” Kurt Schlichter wrote that about Hillary, but it applies equally as well to Lisa Bloom and the rest of the faux feminists out there – which is most of them.

  14. Anyone who tries to defend Weinstien deserves to be crushed. That includes Bloom.

    1. Yup and anyone who defends Trump on same issue deserves to be crushed as well

      Male sexual violence toward women [assault, intimidation, harassment] is 101% non partisan and all decent men should be supporting women 101% so we can end this abomination.

      1. You’re not going to ‘end this abomination’ because street crime is part of the human condition. You can contain street crime. You cannot end it.

        And, of course, phrases like ‘supporting women 101%’ are just drivel when they’re not code for doing away with standard forensic technique, something soi-disant ‘feminists’ want to do because they’re stupid, vicious and destructive people and that’s how stupid, vicious, and destructive people roll.

        Yup and anyone who defends Trump on same issue deserves to be crushed as well

        Don’t try it betsy. I’m not very chivlarous and public discourse would be improved by your silence.

      2. “All decent men should be supporting women 101%”?? Shouldn’t all ‘decent women’ be supporting women 101% as well? How about the so-called feminists who gave Bill Clinton a pass? How about the ‘decent women’ who gave Hillary a pass for enabling her serial-womanizer husband and for destroying the women who accused him of rape and abuse? How about the so-called feminists who remain silent or give a total pass to other well-known womanizing, sexist pig Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Anthony Weiner, and now Harvey Weinstein because: politics trumps everything? This ‘abomination’ as you call it will never end as long as women are not supporting other women because: politics.

        1. You’re expecting betsy, ken, et all to have actual principles and not improvisations to be used in talking points. You will be disappointed every time.

        2. None of these men should be supported. Let’s hope sexual harassment has finally reached the tipping point.

          1. None of these men should be supported.

            Since I’m not their mother, the mother of any of their accusers, or the gal pal of any of their accusers, I won’t be ‘supporting’ anyone. All parties involved merit an impartial investigatory and adjudicatory process.

      3. How about all these ‘decent women’ who shouted from the rooftops their outrage and disgust for Donald Trump, yet worked their asses off to put Bill Clinton back in the White House?

        1. A lot has changed in 20 plus years. Women are less afraid to both condemn and report sexual abuse.

          1. I was referring to the hypocritical so-called feminist women who worked their asses off to put accused rapist Bill Clinton back in the White House – this time as Hillary’s co-president.

              1. Right, and you don’t get more of a grotesque power differential than the sitting President of the United States engaging in a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old intern who’s life he (and his wife Hillary) went on to utterly destroy, now do we? Yet there were so-called feminists fighting to put Bill Clinton BACK in the White House with his enabling wife. Go figure.

                1. They didn’t ‘utterly destroy’ her. She was in the gunsights of a federal investigation, which is a horrendous money sink. He father hired a pair of high-priced lawyers to advise her (after first putting the case in the hands of a chum who specialized in malpractice cases and was notable for exhibitionism). It’s easy to imagine he was out $200,000.

                  Lewinsky’s favors weren’t extorted. She offered herself to him on a platter. He swore her to secrecy and she only told 11 people.

                  In the intervening years, Lewinsky’s life has been rather truncated. Never married, no children, now too old for the latter and likely the former. Life is what happens when you’re makin’ other plans.

                2. Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996 and the Lewinsky scandal did not explode until 1998.

                3. Lewinsky moved to London and attended the London School of Economics. Her life was changed but not really destroyed. Bill Clinton made a bad decision which altered his life and his presidency.

                  1. That she did.

                    She reminds me of Patti Reagan. She’s aged well, as if she had a portrait hanging in her mother’s attic growing old on her behalf. (Wait a minute, isn’t Bernard Lewinsky a plastic surgeon in LA?). No husband, no children, and no one reading a magazine sketch about her could ever figure out what she does for a living.

                  2. SWM – I am not so sure Bill’s decision about Monica altered his presidency as much as his marriage. To save his marriage, he had to agree to back Hillary for Senate and President. He has played his part. As the British say, Hillary always knew Bill was playing away, because she was, too. It is part of the deal they made to support each other. She was in charge of the “bimbo eruption” team during the campaigns.

                    1. I doubt Hilligula had any lovers (or much interest in that aspect of life).

                    2. SOT – she went to an all-girls school. What do you think they do there in their spare time, darn socks? I know two female teachers who went to all-female colleges and both became lesbians, at least while they were there and bi-sexual afterward. Their first sexual experience was with their female college roommate.

                    3. If Hillary had not hitched her wagon to a political star like Bill, and clung to him for dear life, we all know she would probably be sitting in an office as some high-level, but completely unknown bureaucrat. And Hillary knows it too — that’s why she stood by her man all these years. How about that — so she turned out to be like Tammy Wynette afterall.

                    4. Impeachment is a bigger deal. I see The “Goldwater Girl” Hillary as largely asexual.

                    5. SWM – Dick Morris outed her as a lesbian, but then was forced to walk it back, but I think he was right. Personally, I think she is at least a little bi-sexual, but Bill has genital herpes (came up in Monica’s testimony), so going to bed with him is playing Russian roulette with a major STD.

                    6. SOT – she went to an all-girls school. What do you think they do there in their spare time, darn socks?

                      The number of women I’ve been acquainted with who had baccalaureate degrees from that particular college is numbered in two digits and includes a clutch of my relatives. I cannot recall one who was unmarried or childless. Why do you traffick in utter rubbish?

                    7. Dick Morris outed her as a lesbian,

                      Oh, them I’m convinced. Does she suck toes?

                    8. SOT – actually Morris was calling into a local talk show in DC and trying to defend the actions of Bill Clinton. His defense went somewhat along the lines of what if you have a really high sex drive and your wife is a lesbian? What do you do?

                    9. SOT – because it is the utter truth.

                      You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve seen the alumni publications, where women in a given graduating class list their husband, their children, and give a precis of what they’ve been doing with their life.

                      You have this notion in your head that women associating with women and men associating with men must be pathological. That has everything to do with your imagination and nothing to do with actual social life.

          2. The notion that women were systemically ‘afraid’ to do either 20 years ago is a sociological fantasy.

            1. Apparently Weinstein has been engaging in sexual harassment for 30 years. and finally this is seeing the light of day. Altar boys hid their abuse due to fear of the powerful for a very long time, too.

              1. Priests aren’t ‘powerful’ except in your addled head. Neither are bishops unless you’re on the payroll.

                We do not know what Weinstein did do and did not do at this point. We seldom have a clear idea of what particular priests did do or did not do.

                1. SOT – we do know that Weinstein has had 8 payouts in the last 30 years, the last 2 years ago. We have a report from a waitress in an NYC restaurant that is not definitive, but certainly suspicious for a man with 5 children. And it was habitual and with a number of very young women. Which means he was abusing his position. He would disappear for about 2 hours and she would come back looking a lot worse for wear. Sometimes they would disappear for the evening and she would appear the next morning with wet hair and the same clothes. My guess is that in this case, we have only begun to see the tip of the problem. However, the question is whether the MSM will actually cover it.

                  1. Possibly. I’ll suspend judgment. I don’t have any granular knowledge of the case and I tend to be suspicious of media pile-ons an dozens of women suddenly ’empowered’ to come out of the woodwork. The first time I can recall being impressed with the census of accusations was the McMartin case back in 1984.

                    I agree with you the out-of-court settlements are suggestive. Then again, people with known deep pockets are vulnerable. Pride in some men would induce them to tell a false accuser and her lawyer see-you-in-court. I can easily imagine that Weinstein’s the sort who just makes actuarial calculations about what it would cost him and tells his lawyers to pay the accuser to go away. Nuttin’ personal. Just business.

                    1. SOT – when your brother turns you in to the NYT and your own company fires you, there is fire there. Read the article in the NYT. It is an eye-opening read, actually soft porn.

                  2. Okay, so are we supposed to now believe that Weinstein controls the entire world? That he not only pulled strings and made or destroyed careers, in Hollywood, but that any random waitress, in any random eatery, was also compelled, as if by some mysterious cosmic force, to follow him to the back of the establishment to do him favors? Puh-leeeeeez. When does this sh@t ever end, and when do those, who are willing to compromise their values, worth and ntegrity, finally own up to their own disgusting and deviant behavior? Do you really think that this rogue waitress was in danger of losing her position as a waitress unless and until she “serviced” the grotesque Weinstein? If she went with him, she went with him of her own accord. If she now regrets her foolish and stupid antics, oh well. . .easy solution. Stop spreading your legs for every person who you believe can do something for you in life. I suppose that it is easier to shirk all personal responsibility and blame it on the Devil. At what point does personal responsibility kick in. . .or does it ever kick in? I can only scratch my head in wonderment, pondering what Weinstein, as opposed to every other famous director, producer or talent agent did, to some one, some where, to merit this spotlight? Will all of the other directors, producers and talent agents be forced to account for their identical activities or is Weinstein being singled out due to his commission of some grave and irreversible sin committed against some person wielding great power? Can’t help but wonder the motivation behind this sudden attention, especially if he has been engaging in this behavior for decades. It’s like a roach. . .or a mouse. . .when you see one, rest assured, there are many others who are around.

                    1. bam bam – you have never worked in film or the theatre. There are some people who can have complete control over you and your career. The question is: What are you willing to do for your career? Is a bj in an alley worth a film role? Is screwing a fat pig like Weinstein worth a major role in a film. And if you refuse him, he can destroy your career forever. Forever, forever.

                      There is a story about Marilyn Monroe, who was very unhappy about being on a particular film. Finally, she yelled out, “Alright, who do I have to f**k to get off this film.” She eventually got off the film and was replaced.

                    2. Paul, I get what goes on in Hollywood. What I don’t get is reading about some waitress, in some eatery, for whom we are supposed to express pity and sorrow because she felt the need to service this guy. He doesn’t, as I mentioned previously, control the world. At what point does some skank, in some restaurant, need to be held to account for her own shenanigans? Is Judd suddenly awakening from her stupor, to chime in on the scandal, because she has become too irrelevant, old, undesirable and unwanted in her chosen career, and participating in this scandal will allow her bloated mug to resurface in the rags? Her family is not known for its discretion and reserved manner in Hollywood. A shrinking violet, she is not. Why the delay in waiting decades to report these misdeeds? Others, I understand, would be too meek, frightened and timid to proclaim these behaviors. Meek, frightened and timid are not words that one ever associates with the Judd clan.

                    3. The fictional Mel Udall was asked how he wrote women so well. He says, “Easy. I think of a man. Then I remove reason and accountability”.

                      The term ‘white knight’ is used derisively in manosphere circles to describe men who reflexively run interference for women in ways that are at war with the promotion of moral norms. Their reflexive reaction to women’s misbehavior is to manufacture some specious tripe shifting the responsibility to a proximate male or to some cultural matrix supposedly manufactured by males or (more commonly) to strike an attitude that it’s just bad form to hold her accountable because she’s female and most unmanly of you to complain of her conduct.

                      The intersecting efforts of soi-disant feminists (whose second principle of thought and action is that men may not hold women accountable because patriarchy) and white knights have generated a culture wherein the education of women is badly truncated and we have an eight or nine digit population of women whose sense of personal agency and whose capacity to be contrite in a non-spurious way is very hit-and-miss.

              1. I think attractive women play office politics pretty well. And not a few of them aren’t very scrupulous.

              2. SWM – not now, but as they work their way up the corporate ladder, getting more and more power, they have power to abuse and can be sexual harassers. The majority of teachers caught having sex with students lately, have been female. Almost one a day. Hmmmm. The tide has turned.

                1. My husband once worked with an attorney whose wife was one of those teachers. Although there are definitely women offenders, have not seen a woman that drugged and raped like Cosby or harassed multitudes like Weinstein.

                  1. That’s because women seldom commit crimes defined in the penal law. They just underperform in a multitude of settings and render people exasperated and miserable through banal misbehavior.

            1. Clinton was impeached. Weiner is in jail. Your guy is in the whitehouse. Hopefully his caretakers will keep an eye on him.

              1. What exactly did President Trump do that was the moral equivalent to President Clinton?

              2. The point is that we all know about Bill Clinton’s sick womanizing ways and yet women were working hard to put him BACK in the White House. And independent-thinking women who backed Bernie instead of Hillary were told that there was a special place in hell for them, remember that? So my point is, stop blaming the men and take a good look at all the women who harm other women because: politics.

                  1. I meant stop placing all the blame on men. Yes, the men are responsible for their actions. But also, take a look at how women treat other women. There are women who are complicit. There are women willing to look the other way or to destroy other women to get what they want and it perpetuates the problem. Hillary Clinton comes to mind as one particularly gross example.

                    1. You’re not getting swathmoremom’s sine qua non: women have options; men have obligations.

              3. Clinton was also in the White House. He and Hellary avoided criminal prosecution. Funny how Susan McDougal was willing to rot in jail for 18 months rather than testify in front of a grand jury

                What’s grossly amusing is that the nexus of money centers which comprise the Democratic Party (e.g. higher education) are willing to pay Bilge $189,000 for 50 minutes of boilerplate, in spite of his having been disbarred and in spite of the midnight pardons with the six figure finder’s fee to his brother-in-law Higher ed deserves drone strikes.

      4. Fun to read all the responses.

        Now I think I’ll write about how Columbus accidentally stumbled across land occupied by others and set in motion a long history of stealing it for his King and Queen. And of course they justified their theft, as conquerers always do, by calling the NAs barbarians and heathens cause they weren’t, horrors, white and Christian.

        Ah, why bother…

        1. Now I think I’ll write about how Columbus accidentally stumbled across land occupied by others and set in motion a long history of stealing it for his King and Queen.

          North and South America were quite sparsely populated outside the Valley of Mexico and the Andean altiplano. Those there resident were generally organized into stateless societies without delineated property rights. They worked land they’d acquired from ejecting the previous band of aboriginals occupying wherever they happened to be.

          One of these days, you’ll say something that isn’t a lie, isn’t horredously tendentious, and isn’t self-aggrandizing. I will be safely and cozily dead by time you get around to it, I am sure.

Comments are closed.