I haven’t written anything about Harvey Weinstein since he was formally charged on an assortment of rape, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct charges back in May. He was perp-walked in front the cameras in New York and the rapist pig had the nerve to smile for the photographers. Since then, new indictments have been added to the charges, and Weinstein continues to plead not-guilty. They say he’s even acting as his own paralegal. He’s not in a jail right now – he’s out on bond, wearing a GPS monitor. Which is why Weinstein was free to chat up a friend, gossip columnist Taki Theodoracopulos. Taki reported Weinstein’s comments, then Taki retracted the column, claiming that he and Weinstein were actually speaking off the record.
The Spectator columnist Taki Theodoracopulos has retracted an interview with Harvey Weinstein in which the disgraced Hollywood mogul was quoted discussing the sexual assault allegations against him. In a story published Friday — “Harvey Weinstein: ‘I offered acting jobs in exchange for sex, but so does everyone – they still do’” — Theodoracopulos wrote a column in defense of Weinstein and quoted him in the first interview since the accusations and subsequent sex-crimes charges came to light about his alleged behavior.
“You were born rich and privileged and you were handsome,” Weinstein is quoted as saying to Theodoracopulos. “I was born poor, ugly, Jewish and had to fight all my life to get somewhere. You got lotsa girls, no girl looked at me until I made it big in Hollywood. Yes, I did offer them acting jobs in exchange for sex, but so did and still does everyone. But I never, ever forced myself on a single woman.”
Theodoracopulos said the interview took place in his New York office above Cipriani’s and that Weinstein’s lawyer, Ben Brafman, was also present. Shortly after the story published, Brafman said Weinstein was misquoted and Theodoracopulos issued a retraction over what he called a “social” visit.
“I was present for the conversation; it was not an interview, but a social meeting between old friends,” says Brafman in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “Harvey and Taki did not discuss the case, nor would I allow him to. They talked about old Hollywood and the contrast to European culture, and I think Taki sees Harvey in that older light. Mr. Weinstein never said anything about trading movie roles for sexual favors. You have my word that Harvey did not say that.”
Theodoracopulos added in a statement: “After 41 years as a Spectator columnist without a single retraction, I believe that I may have misrepresented Harvey Weinstein’s conversation with me in New York last month. It was my mistake. We were discussing Hollywood and I may have misunderstood certain things about the methods of that place. I had nothing to do with the headline of my article and I hope I have not damaged his case. It was, after all, a social visit.”
I actually couldn’t care less about the journalistic standards – or lack thereof – of this situation. I’m pretty positive that Weinstein said what Taki initially quoted, and there was probably some kind of stupid mix-up about what was on or off the record (who talks to a gossip columnist off the record with his lawyer in the room??). But the substance of the quote is pure Harvey Weinstein: he’s trying to normalize what he did AND present himself as some kind of victim. Transactional relationships happen, but that’s not what Weinstein was accused of. He was accused of harassing, abusing, assaulting and raping dozens of women (if not hundreds of women) over the course of three decades. What this amounts to is Weinstein calling ALL of his accusers “transactional” prostitutes who willingly slept with him to further their careers. And Weinstein is saying he did what he did because he’s ugly, so pity the poor rapist.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid.
A totally disgusting human being. Check that…I don’t even consider him human.
Yeah, he is a monster. Seems as though he hasn’t learned any humility whatsoever. He needs to start rotting in prison, stat.
Well at least he right about himself which is probably the only honest thing he’s said so far
He would say that, since he doesn’t know wtf consent is. His word is worthless because he is a rapist, an abuser, and a liar.
+1000
The amount of pain he caused over the years. I hope he gets a life sentence.
He looks like what he is in these pictures—evil, ugly, malevolent.
Ugh, imagine being an actress trying to make it and constantly being offered roles for sex. How tiring.
Plus the flipside to “if you sleep with me I’ll give you a job” is “if you won’t sleep with me you won’t get a job” and that’s an inch from “if you don’t sleep with me I’ll fire you.”
Unless someone is actually a sex worker who has chosen sex work as an adult (not trafficked), sex should never be on the table in relation to employment.
And it’s so sexist.
I said this elsewhere, but imagine if this was standard operating practise in any male-dominated industry. Imagine if it was completely normal for plumbers to have to suck their boss’s D to get a job.
such a good point!!! god, thats really all that needs saying here. what if everyone had to suck a dick to get a job?
The corporate world, finance, art, tech, and even the military are the same. I can name more but basically anyplace where men have been able to dominate exclusively are places where women are not safe.
I still don’t understand why women prisons have one single man on duty anywhere. There should never be male warden or any men with access to vulnerable women. But that is a rant for another day.
Harvey behaved the way he did before he even stepped foot in LA and the evil liar won’t admit even that.
Also think about the implication for all actresses here: they get their roles by having sex with powerful men. It’s the old “actresses are just prostitutes” slander.
Plus, where’s the _consent_ when a job is on the line? There’s no consent when blackmail is involved. Please.
I just want to add that it goes beyond physical/sexual assault and harrassment and becomes a case of economic abuse of women. He controlled the current and future earning potential of the women he encountered in this way.
Shut the f^^k up, Harvey.
Will this sub-human POS ever see the inside of prison? I hope so…then he can think about all those imaginary “transactional relationships” that inflicted so much misery and pain. Unfortunately, I don’t have much faith in the criminal justice system, especially when it comes to prosecuting privileged white males, even if they are “ugly.”
I agree, IlsaLund – it’s so hurtful, frustrating and bewildering when people who have done bad things get off with incredibly light sentences….I remind myself regularly that we do not have a justice system at all, not even a little bit. We have a legal system that is open to manipulation, where lawyers earn more money and rewards for circumventing the legal system, thus perverting the intention of the law. Forget about a just punishment for someone convicted beyond a reasonable doubt IE: proof based). It is virtually impossible to convict under these archaic principles. I remind myself how long it’s taken to get this far…but here we are! We need to keep our eyes focused on the big picture stuff. At least, I do. Because otherwise, the future is bleak indeed and I have no hope left.
Yeah a monster and a piece of garbage as ever. He’s right about one thing though…he is ugly, in every way imaginable.
As reality dawns on him, this is where I am afraid this is going: He’s going to start giving examples, ie she did this and I gave her this role, she did that and got that role. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see women who have not made an accusation or even commented dragged into this with him claiming a “transactional relationship”. I hope these women will be supported, and know that they will be supported. This is all so horrifying and it’s not going to get easier.
That’s awful, and you’re probably right ☹
I would bet that behind the scenes, there are a lot of women who have spoken to their lawyers. Because indeed, that was the one thing that has been missing: women coming forward to see that they were pressured into “transactional relationships” to get their jobs. Because it’s STILL wrong. This was illegal. They were victims too, but the public reaction is going to be brutal on them. It’s sad, and I’m betting that there’s a lot of legal threatening behind the scenes to keep their names out of Harvey’s mouth. Too bad he’ll sell anyone out to try to save his own skin.
Oh my goodness, I had not even thought of that! He probably figured “if I go down, you all come with me” being “too big to fail” or prosecute. But Mia4s, you’ve added a layer of horror to this I hadn’t considered. This is awful.
You’re probably right, and it’s an extremely dangerous situation. I’m not too optimistic that any women in that boat will get too much support if it comes to that though, unfortunately. They’d be subjected to misogynistic abuse from all kinds of people for the rest of their lives, however long that may be. Many people would see them as to blame for Harvey’s (and other men’s) decisions to violate other women too, and there are almost certainly people who would actively want to harm them if that were to get out. On top of all that, their situations would be used to shut down abuse victims and other women.
I also think Harvey would be willing to mix some lies with the truth in order to destroy as many women as possible. He’d throw in some names of unnamed women who he actually raped/assaulted to make it look like they were willing participants, and he may even add some that he neither raped nor slept with for good measure. Whatever he says will be taken as gospel either way, because men are believed over women when it comes to anything sex-related.
Wah wah wah….I guess his beautiful wife wasn’t enough for him. I’m going to vomit. Funnily enough, this is similar to the brainwashing my father tried to give me regarding his constant cheating on my mum. “I didn’t date in high school. I was poor, and my broken nose gave me low self confidence.” 🙄
That still really isn’t “consensual” to me. If there was an expectation that they had to do that in order for their career then it doesnt sound like they really wanted it which again…..not consensual.
EXACTLY. That was the first thought that occurred to me; if he was threatening these actresses with “if you want this job you’ve to sleep with me” it is still not in any way consensual.
THIS. There’s no consent in a sex-for-job negotiation. That’s coercion, and harassment, and wrong.
I have a feeling, if he is put in reguakr prison, he may soon realize what it was like to be on that infamous acting couch. Ouch.
Seeing him all smiles makes me want to punch him the throat. What a swine.
What he is describing is text book quid pro quo sexual harassment. This for that, or something for something. “Quid pro quo harassment occurs in the workplace when a manager or other authority figure offers or merely hints that he or she will give the employee something (a raise or a promotion) in return for that employee’s satisfaction of a sexual demand.”
I work in HR, and one of the most important aspects of the Me Too movement for me has been the discussion around consent when there is an inbalance of power or authority. If there are negative professional consequences if she doesn’t say yes, then it really isn’t consensual.
His argument is built on perceived entitlement and the premise that women are interchangeable whores — and he’s merely in a buyer’s marker.
That’s his *best* shot at justification of his vile behavior. Justification that turns rape into a business transaction.
The only thing close to the truth was the fact that he certainly is not alone in his repugnant beliefs and actions. He just cranked the horror up to 12.
yeah, I’m afraid once he’s in front of that 12 being a jury OF HIS PEERS we lose yet again, because he is not alone in his repugnant beliefs and actions, as you say, @SJF. Oh, dear
I don’t think Taki publishing the initial conversation was a mistake. He’s too smart and too seasoned to report something that wasn’t agreed. Harvey is a very clever person and understands media manipulation. If anything I would guess that it was meant to be out there and then retracted. There is a veiled threat there and he likes to make sure people know who is holding the information. If rumors are true and he has kept a cache of photographs, recordings, names, dates etc. then this could be him saying he will name names.
This may be him saying he is willing to go scorched earth and that he is prepared to take some people down with him. We all know he could and though I think some actresses denials were necessary and their business, he can probably produce proof to the contrary. Society wouldn’t see them as victims of a skewed nasty system and he knows that. That is how low and horrible he is.
I mean what did he say that reflected badly on him really? He threw it out there and then retracted but it is still out there.
And opened himself to libel by each and every accuser it’s generally impossible to prove libel but in this case when he’s found guilty , making the claims his behavior transactional will
Open himself to libel ! thanks dude bros for the extra ammo keep him semi free so he can hang his miserable louse self with interviews like this to keep him locked up extra long
The worst part IMHO? In the USA at least it is next to impossible for actors to file sexual harassment lawsuits against people like Weinstein because actors are typically independent contractors – not employees. Even after a project has started production, it can be next to impossible to pursue civil remedies because no one wants to be a witness and potentially get blackballed for life in Hollywood. That is why criminal charges are so important to stopping – or at least shaming – predators like Weinstein. But I fear many of the people who are now coming out against him will suffer career-wise, despite #MeToo and Time’s Up.
I don’t think so. Harvey was so hated for so long and he was losing power so he is fine to hate and disaparage.
I think what he did in the interview is to try to set himself up as not a rapist but just a guy who had something to offer pretty actresses wanted. Unfortunately, some people will buy this as a reasonable explanation and it could work.
So obtuse and disgusting
Okay Harv…”consensual”. No. Not anytime you are using it as leverage. Which you did.
Just die already.
So in Harvey’s mind, it’s okay to sexually harass someone if you’re ugly. Is he saying If you’re ugly, it’s consensual? I don’t know what to do with that, except I can’t stop thinking of this…..
“Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll