The couple behind "Harvey Weinstein Trial: Unfiltered" on why the mogul's NY sentence deserved to be overturned, the failures of journalism, Hollywood's transactional nature -- and what's next
Not only was this completely unexpected and eye-opening, I particularly enjoyed the fact that the guests discussing it were Irish. Aside from the pleasure of listening to their voices, I enjoyed hearing this filtered through that very Irish, seemingly instilled, bone-deep aversion to bullshit.
Agree, both that it was unexpected/eye-opening and the Irish connection. I hadn't followed the trial(s) at all so made the usual assumptions about guilt; had no idea it was even under appeal. Nancy and Sarah - another really good interview.
I'm going to say something hateful that I believe to be true. The Anthony Rapp thing matters to me because Star Trek is something like my religion and I fear he manipulated the me too movement to enhance the social relevance of Star Trek Discovery and thus extend its claim on historically leading-edge humanism.
As if I needed more reason to love you Not Sam Harris. I think Discovery was trash, but sacrifices had to be made, and we got strange new worlds, which is very much working for me so far.
Oh my god yes in all the ways, excluding the musical episode. Star Trek DEI is now cancelled, but at least they've brought in the show's first (in a while) cis white straight male character who is pretty based but the final season is still kinda awful.
LOL I 100% skipped the musical episode. But I have watched both seasons twice now, and I feel finally we have an actual, real deal, Startrek for a new generation. Idk how they managed to survive the IP slaughter that has happened over the last 5 years or so, but I for one am super pumped it is still a thing. I am obviously a guy of the TNG generation. I remember clearly the push back on that series, let alone the pissyness about Voyager, but to me that is what Startrek does, it illustrates instead of advocates for a different world to imagine. It might now be YOUR world, but it should feel like a possible world. The title of the new series feels like an inside nod to me do to that fact. Almost like it was an acknowledgement to the old heads, and a promise to the new fans. Lol, I am not a trekkie, no conventions for me. But it has consistently been on top of my list for watching.
I basically raised myself on TNG and Voyager and was served as well as having any tv show for role models could do. Like I said, its very serious business in my house. We are so far afield from Harvey Weinstein lol
Same. My buddy Drew and I talk about this all the time. He has two boys now and we have decided they are going to be startrek fans whether or not they want to be. Those three series TNG, DS9, and Voyager were so well written given the amount of episodes. Even Enterprise was OK to me, but I was a Quantum Leap fan so feel free to ignore me.
The whole weinstein thing is boring as shit to me. Innocent or guilty that whole industry is an ethical, moral, and ideological piss pot. I am fine with standing by while they eat their young. So you're telling me some of the most attractive women on earth will sleep with a carbuncular, ogerish ghoul in exchange for a chance at fame? Aren't there like 20 movies about this very thing? Monsters are the rule in hollywood from what I have seen, not the exception. I have never been shown a casting couch, but there has been plenty of times in my life, say neck deep in concrete forms or tearing off shake shingles in 100 degree heat, where it would look like a pretty nice alternative.
My best advice for compelling star trek fandom is to forbid it like "This is too scary for little kids" and then let them get their hands on it. I wouldn't count on Star Trek Prodigy doing the indoctrinating (which I watched all of, I can't quit Janeway)
It was weird to watch Discovery While also being aware of Rapp’s issue. That said, I really dislike Discovery seasons 3,4, and what I could stand to watch of five. The Urgent meaning-laden whispering drives me nuts. This show should be called Star Trek Self Discovery. I’d rather be stuck in Quark’s bar with Odo for a month.
As one of your devoted listeners who is also all-in on Star Trek (I go to the big Trek convention in August every year, I go on the Star Trek Cruise every year, and I have my own tiny Star Trek podcast) it’s ok to give a pass on any given Trek series. There’s a wide variety.
But I do recall you saying that you love talky shows and there are some Trek series that are talky AF. 🖖🏻
Where to start with this... First let me say I enjoyed the podcast. I went into this only knowing the basics of the Weinstein trail and had never heard of these two or listened to their podcast. I didn't know the legalisms behind the Weinstein prosecution. I sort of thought maybe state laws/statutes of limitation were stretched in order to get this prosecution done, but that was the extent of it. I thought the evidence was probably overwhelming, if a little bit circumstantial, as rape cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I didn't listen to their original podcast on this but it appears that they were indeed right, at least in the eyes of the judge or panel of judges that overturned this (again, I'm not following it closely). I congratulate them for this.
However, something about these two left me feeling a little off. Little nuggets here and there that suggested to me that they weren't just unbiased third parties. First, Phelim's insistence that the trial should not have been tried in New York City but rather in upstate NY struck me as.... odd. It seemed a little too pro-Weinstein. It's not exactly a liberal MeToo conspiracy to try someone in the city where the crimes took place, Lol. Granted the pair spent a lot of time in the courtroom, but do they have any background in American law from which to say this? Did they become American citizens? Are there other good examples of moving a trial hundreds of miles away from the spot of the alleged crime because the accused is a celebrity? Is the jury pool in New York City so enamored with the Me Too movement that Harvey couldn't get a fair trial? Only the good rural folk upstate could be entrusted with it? Ridiculous.
So let's see, what else have these two enterprising Irish chaps done after a moment of research. A pro-fracking film, a film challenging Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth--that climate change is manmade, and best of all, a biopic of Hunter Biden called "My Son Hunter" funded by Breitbart. And then a movie and book about that horrible Philadelphia abortion doctor. It doesn't take much digging to see that they would be just as at home behind the mic at a Heritage Foundation dinner as in the podcast studio. It doesn't get more Right Wing Inc. than these two. Now, that doesn't necessarily affect their Weinstein arguments overall, and their argument deserves to stand on its own. Nor is it likely to matter to readers of this substack, but for me, taken all together it casts them in a much more skeptical light.
Thank you for saying this, Mark. I too felt off after listening to these journalists here, and then after listening to two of the Weinstein trial pod episodes. They do not feel unbiased in the least to me, and seem intent on discrediting the witnesses.
While I agree that maybe some things about the Weinstein trial were mishandled (from what I understand), I feel like the "common sense dictates" argument that McElhinney and McAleer insist upon is a very dated and, dare I say, facile take on the circumstances surrounding the alleged rapes. "Common sense dictates that Weinstein couldn't have gotten past the doorman at Sciorra's apartment." Really? A man as powerful, wealthy, and worldly as Weinstein doesn't have some moves for getting past a doorman? "Common sense dictates that a rape victim wouldn't have a 'relationship' with her rapist after the fact." Really? We know so much more about survivors and their behaviour now.
I'm not saying that the witnesses' accounts necessarily prove that Weinstein committed these crimes, but the existence of a doorman or these relationships doesn't necessarily disprove them either.
I haven't listened to their whole pod and I'm not sure if I will. I want to "have ears for it," as Sarah says, but... I'm finding it tough.
I seem to be on the minority on this one, so I appreciate hearing from someone else who heard what I heard. Again, thanks, Mark.
In the podcast, they talked about the voir dire part of the trial, and how so many of the prospective jurors had connections to Weinstein and/or Miramax. I believe that is why the change in venue was suggested as an idea. Nothing at all about "only the good rural folk upstate" being able to be entrusted. Also, there are other cities in NY; everywhere outside of NYC is not rural.
I think that listening to their podcast in it's entirety is a good idea before dismissing them as right wing hacks.
I also don't think being a Republican or right wing is disqualifying for anybody or any belief.
I have to agree with you, Mark. I thought I'd give their other podcast a try ("The Ann and Phelim Scoop"), and in their HW episode, they compare Trump''s "unfair trial" to HW's...
I swear I want to share this one with everyone, wish it was on the free feed on Apple pods
I’m still gonna tell people about it
Due process and fair trials are literally one of the most important parts of our government and more often than not when celebrity or media get involved the process gets perverted
I hope as we get distance from me too that more people realize how effed up that whole thing was
No one wants rapists and abusers on the loose, but between this and the college date rape situation we are miles too far in the wrong direction on these cases
I’m binging the Harvey podcast by the Irish journalists now. Wow is it gripping!!
I’m only on episode 11 so far, but so far my priors are being confirmed.
My thoughts were that Weinstein coerced young women into sex, that it was a pay-to-play situation. And that after the rapes, they tried to salvage the situation by getting what they could from their connection to him. I don’t think that was exonerates him at all morally, but it muddies the waters so much for a criminal trial.
The defense makes so much about the women seeking contact with him after the rapes, as if that means he didn’t do it. I just don’t see that.
I think they figured they had been through something awful and they may as well try to turn lemons into lemonade.
Well, I finished the Harvey Weinstein Unfiltered podcast.
What is going on with the world?? Unless the journalists cut out all the most convincing stuff, I'm pretty shocked that the jury found him guilty.
I also don't know what purpose it served to constantly harp on how physically repellent he is. Humiliation seemed to be the only point.
If I had to make my best guess, I would say that these women entered into transactional sexual relationships with him. He wanted sex, they wanted jobs, money, fame.
If I am trying to give the women all the benefit of the doubt, the best case scenario is that he forced sex onto them, and they acquiesced because they felt intimidated. Then they tried to parlay that rape/unwanted sex into a real sexual relationship with him so that they could have access to the film industry. Going by their own emails to him, they were playing him, lying to him by pretending to like or love him and want to be with him. So why would we think that they are now telling the truth to us?
I agree with this - I had no idea about all of the things discussed in the podcast as I’d only really read the mainstream stuff on it. It does look like a miscarriage of justice and that’s unacceptable if you believe in the rule of law. Everyone should be treated equally before the law (even assholes).
It’s weird that when I think about the case what I mostly remember is all of the descriptions of how hideous he is physically, and the pot plant thing. His ugliness constantly reiterated as if that made his crimes worse somehow (if he was very handsome would that be the case? Not sure). I mean, you can’t help how attractive you’re born.
As for the transactional nature of it all, I agree. But Hollywood has always been like that and everyone has always known it. You could argue that about many other professions - young women (and some men) will do things with powerful people to get ahead. Tale as old as time. So for them to then pretend later on that they were innocents who were exploited is manipulative. They knew what they were getting into, maybe they did feel uneasy but they did it anyway. They all seem to have got something out of it at the time too.
The whole thing is a nasty business. There is a saying “there are no friends in politics” - I think this applies to Hollywood too. Your ‘friends’ will throw you under the bus without hesitation.
Sarah, have you been following the case of the University of Illinois star basketball player who was accused of “digitally penetrating“ a woman in a nightclub? I think this trial will be interesting. Here’s the latest.
I have not, but I skimmed that story, and I'm cringing at all the DNA tests done on a woman's body to prove ... what, I'm not sure. I have very strong feelings about "digital penetration" vs. "rape" and the chasm between them, while the legal space between them shrinks. Thanks for sharing, these cases are sadly common. Keep us posted.
I wonder if there will be witness testimony. I’ve had my ass grabbed in the bar plenty of times, but I don’t know how someone can finger a woman in public without anyone noticing! Also, how does that happen? Were they making out and he decided he could go to third base? Or is this just like a flyby fingering? I find this just so strange and cringey. Drunk men do stupid things though.
Other details about this case are that the student was initially suspended after the rape allegations and banned from playing basketball, but he was able to successfully get a restraining order against the university approved by a judge who said that banning him from playing restricting his future career prospects because he will plan to go into the NBA after he graduates.
Illinois doesn’t have a good enough basketball team for this to make national news, but they played really well in the NCAA championships because this player was allowed to continue playing despite this open court case against him.
BIG-TIME shout out to Nancy's "Asia Argento's Time Is Up". The Shakespearean foreshadowing in the opening paragraph is a work of art. The heart is deceitful above all things meets perfectly at the intersection of Argento and JT LeRoy circa 2003. IYKYK
Awww, and here I was giving them a hard time for mispronouncing Sciorra and Weinstein. I'm sure my Irish ancestors were shaking their fist at the sky, but likely with a beer in the other hand, so they'll forgive me.
It was a destabilizing moment for me as I began to understand that the media was actively being deceptive in its coverage of the trial. I just wanted to also note that Joann Wypljewski of The Nation fought the trend with honest coverage. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/weinstein-trial-rape-manhattan/
Just wanted to add—thanks for this great podcast & the great coverage of the injustice of the Title IX rules. I really appreciate you all for pursuing the unpopular truth of this.
The hotties' takes are getting hotter! Thanks for this and the OK and the title 9 pods ..,unique and very timely perspectives
Omg not OK
OJ
Damn you autocorrect
I have hot takes on Oklahoma too!
Not only was this completely unexpected and eye-opening, I particularly enjoyed the fact that the guests discussing it were Irish. Aside from the pleasure of listening to their voices, I enjoyed hearing this filtered through that very Irish, seemingly instilled, bone-deep aversion to bullshit.
Agree, both that it was unexpected/eye-opening and the Irish connection. I hadn't followed the trial(s) at all so made the usual assumptions about guilt; had no idea it was even under appeal. Nancy and Sarah - another really good interview.
I'm going to say something hateful that I believe to be true. The Anthony Rapp thing matters to me because Star Trek is something like my religion and I fear he manipulated the me too movement to enhance the social relevance of Star Trek Discovery and thus extend its claim on historically leading-edge humanism.
He brought dishonor to Star Trek. He is a p'tahk.
As if I needed more reason to love you Not Sam Harris. I think Discovery was trash, but sacrifices had to be made, and we got strange new worlds, which is very much working for me so far.
Oh my god yes in all the ways, excluding the musical episode. Star Trek DEI is now cancelled, but at least they've brought in the show's first (in a while) cis white straight male character who is pretty based but the final season is still kinda awful.
LOL I 100% skipped the musical episode. But I have watched both seasons twice now, and I feel finally we have an actual, real deal, Startrek for a new generation. Idk how they managed to survive the IP slaughter that has happened over the last 5 years or so, but I for one am super pumped it is still a thing. I am obviously a guy of the TNG generation. I remember clearly the push back on that series, let alone the pissyness about Voyager, but to me that is what Startrek does, it illustrates instead of advocates for a different world to imagine. It might now be YOUR world, but it should feel like a possible world. The title of the new series feels like an inside nod to me do to that fact. Almost like it was an acknowledgement to the old heads, and a promise to the new fans. Lol, I am not a trekkie, no conventions for me. But it has consistently been on top of my list for watching.
I basically raised myself on TNG and Voyager and was served as well as having any tv show for role models could do. Like I said, its very serious business in my house. We are so far afield from Harvey Weinstein lol
Same. My buddy Drew and I talk about this all the time. He has two boys now and we have decided they are going to be startrek fans whether or not they want to be. Those three series TNG, DS9, and Voyager were so well written given the amount of episodes. Even Enterprise was OK to me, but I was a Quantum Leap fan so feel free to ignore me.
The whole weinstein thing is boring as shit to me. Innocent or guilty that whole industry is an ethical, moral, and ideological piss pot. I am fine with standing by while they eat their young. So you're telling me some of the most attractive women on earth will sleep with a carbuncular, ogerish ghoul in exchange for a chance at fame? Aren't there like 20 movies about this very thing? Monsters are the rule in hollywood from what I have seen, not the exception. I have never been shown a casting couch, but there has been plenty of times in my life, say neck deep in concrete forms or tearing off shake shingles in 100 degree heat, where it would look like a pretty nice alternative.
My best advice for compelling star trek fandom is to forbid it like "This is too scary for little kids" and then let them get their hands on it. I wouldn't count on Star Trek Prodigy doing the indoctrinating (which I watched all of, I can't quit Janeway)
No new Strang New Worlds until 2025 unfortunately, which is fine. Don't rush it.
SkyDance now owns Star Trek in the Paramount takeover as I understand it
It was weird to watch Discovery While also being aware of Rapp’s issue. That said, I really dislike Discovery seasons 3,4, and what I could stand to watch of five. The Urgent meaning-laden whispering drives me nuts. This show should be called Star Trek Self Discovery. I’d rather be stuck in Quark’s bar with Odo for a month.
We can redeem this Trek talk for the ladies if we show them what captain Pike looks like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anson_Mount
And for the gays, new Spock:
https://www.instyle.com/ethan-peck-star-trek-strange-new-worlds-interview-2023-7554297
I will likely never watch Star Trek, but I appreciate this strong push. I'll hit you with my thoughts on MILF Manor season 2 soon.
As one of your devoted listeners who is also all-in on Star Trek (I go to the big Trek convention in August every year, I go on the Star Trek Cruise every year, and I have my own tiny Star Trek podcast) it’s ok to give a pass on any given Trek series. There’s a wide variety.
But I do recall you saying that you love talky shows and there are some Trek series that are talky AF. 🖖🏻
Where to start with this... First let me say I enjoyed the podcast. I went into this only knowing the basics of the Weinstein trail and had never heard of these two or listened to their podcast. I didn't know the legalisms behind the Weinstein prosecution. I sort of thought maybe state laws/statutes of limitation were stretched in order to get this prosecution done, but that was the extent of it. I thought the evidence was probably overwhelming, if a little bit circumstantial, as rape cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I didn't listen to their original podcast on this but it appears that they were indeed right, at least in the eyes of the judge or panel of judges that overturned this (again, I'm not following it closely). I congratulate them for this.
However, something about these two left me feeling a little off. Little nuggets here and there that suggested to me that they weren't just unbiased third parties. First, Phelim's insistence that the trial should not have been tried in New York City but rather in upstate NY struck me as.... odd. It seemed a little too pro-Weinstein. It's not exactly a liberal MeToo conspiracy to try someone in the city where the crimes took place, Lol. Granted the pair spent a lot of time in the courtroom, but do they have any background in American law from which to say this? Did they become American citizens? Are there other good examples of moving a trial hundreds of miles away from the spot of the alleged crime because the accused is a celebrity? Is the jury pool in New York City so enamored with the Me Too movement that Harvey couldn't get a fair trial? Only the good rural folk upstate could be entrusted with it? Ridiculous.
So let's see, what else have these two enterprising Irish chaps done after a moment of research. A pro-fracking film, a film challenging Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth--that climate change is manmade, and best of all, a biopic of Hunter Biden called "My Son Hunter" funded by Breitbart. And then a movie and book about that horrible Philadelphia abortion doctor. It doesn't take much digging to see that they would be just as at home behind the mic at a Heritage Foundation dinner as in the podcast studio. It doesn't get more Right Wing Inc. than these two. Now, that doesn't necessarily affect their Weinstein arguments overall, and their argument deserves to stand on its own. Nor is it likely to matter to readers of this substack, but for me, taken all together it casts them in a much more skeptical light.
Thank you for saying this, Mark. I too felt off after listening to these journalists here, and then after listening to two of the Weinstein trial pod episodes. They do not feel unbiased in the least to me, and seem intent on discrediting the witnesses.
While I agree that maybe some things about the Weinstein trial were mishandled (from what I understand), I feel like the "common sense dictates" argument that McElhinney and McAleer insist upon is a very dated and, dare I say, facile take on the circumstances surrounding the alleged rapes. "Common sense dictates that Weinstein couldn't have gotten past the doorman at Sciorra's apartment." Really? A man as powerful, wealthy, and worldly as Weinstein doesn't have some moves for getting past a doorman? "Common sense dictates that a rape victim wouldn't have a 'relationship' with her rapist after the fact." Really? We know so much more about survivors and their behaviour now.
I'm not saying that the witnesses' accounts necessarily prove that Weinstein committed these crimes, but the existence of a doorman or these relationships doesn't necessarily disprove them either.
I haven't listened to their whole pod and I'm not sure if I will. I want to "have ears for it," as Sarah says, but... I'm finding it tough.
I seem to be on the minority on this one, so I appreciate hearing from someone else who heard what I heard. Again, thanks, Mark.
In the podcast, they talked about the voir dire part of the trial, and how so many of the prospective jurors had connections to Weinstein and/or Miramax. I believe that is why the change in venue was suggested as an idea. Nothing at all about "only the good rural folk upstate" being able to be entrusted. Also, there are other cities in NY; everywhere outside of NYC is not rural.
I think that listening to their podcast in it's entirety is a good idea before dismissing them as right wing hacks.
I also don't think being a Republican or right wing is disqualifying for anybody or any belief.
I have to agree with you, Mark. I thought I'd give their other podcast a try ("The Ann and Phelim Scoop"), and in their HW episode, they compare Trump''s "unfair trial" to HW's...
This was a mind blowing episode. I had no idea journalists were holding back so much information.
I swear I want to share this one with everyone, wish it was on the free feed on Apple pods
I’m still gonna tell people about it
Due process and fair trials are literally one of the most important parts of our government and more often than not when celebrity or media get involved the process gets perverted
I hope as we get distance from me too that more people realize how effed up that whole thing was
No one wants rapists and abusers on the loose, but between this and the college date rape situation we are miles too far in the wrong direction on these cases
I shared this comment with Nancy, and we decided to re-publish the entire episode without the paywall this week so more people can hear it.
I’m binging the Harvey podcast by the Irish journalists now. Wow is it gripping!!
I’m only on episode 11 so far, but so far my priors are being confirmed.
My thoughts were that Weinstein coerced young women into sex, that it was a pay-to-play situation. And that after the rapes, they tried to salvage the situation by getting what they could from their connection to him. I don’t think that was exonerates him at all morally, but it muddies the waters so much for a criminal trial.
The defense makes so much about the women seeking contact with him after the rapes, as if that means he didn’t do it. I just don’t see that.
I think they figured they had been through something awful and they may as well try to turn lemons into lemonade.
Well, I finished the Harvey Weinstein Unfiltered podcast.
What is going on with the world?? Unless the journalists cut out all the most convincing stuff, I'm pretty shocked that the jury found him guilty.
I also don't know what purpose it served to constantly harp on how physically repellent he is. Humiliation seemed to be the only point.
If I had to make my best guess, I would say that these women entered into transactional sexual relationships with him. He wanted sex, they wanted jobs, money, fame.
If I am trying to give the women all the benefit of the doubt, the best case scenario is that he forced sex onto them, and they acquiesced because they felt intimidated. Then they tried to parlay that rape/unwanted sex into a real sexual relationship with him so that they could have access to the film industry. Going by their own emails to him, they were playing him, lying to him by pretending to like or love him and want to be with him. So why would we think that they are now telling the truth to us?
Am I thinking about this wrong?
I agree with this - I had no idea about all of the things discussed in the podcast as I’d only really read the mainstream stuff on it. It does look like a miscarriage of justice and that’s unacceptable if you believe in the rule of law. Everyone should be treated equally before the law (even assholes).
It’s weird that when I think about the case what I mostly remember is all of the descriptions of how hideous he is physically, and the pot plant thing. His ugliness constantly reiterated as if that made his crimes worse somehow (if he was very handsome would that be the case? Not sure). I mean, you can’t help how attractive you’re born.
As for the transactional nature of it all, I agree. But Hollywood has always been like that and everyone has always known it. You could argue that about many other professions - young women (and some men) will do things with powerful people to get ahead. Tale as old as time. So for them to then pretend later on that they were innocents who were exploited is manipulative. They knew what they were getting into, maybe they did feel uneasy but they did it anyway. They all seem to have got something out of it at the time too.
The whole thing is a nasty business. There is a saying “there are no friends in politics” - I think this applies to Hollywood too. Your ‘friends’ will throw you under the bus without hesitation.
Maybe its better to pursue a life path that has nothing to do with your looks.
Sarah, have you been following the case of the University of Illinois star basketball player who was accused of “digitally penetrating“ a woman in a nightclub? I think this trial will be interesting. Here’s the latest.
https://www.news-gazette.com/newsletter/content/sports/illini_basketball/shannons-team-files-motion-to-exclude-forensic-evidence/article_12604ee8-d2d1-56f6-a11e-60a1c292b44b.html
I have not, but I skimmed that story, and I'm cringing at all the DNA tests done on a woman's body to prove ... what, I'm not sure. I have very strong feelings about "digital penetration" vs. "rape" and the chasm between them, while the legal space between them shrinks. Thanks for sharing, these cases are sadly common. Keep us posted.
I wonder if there will be witness testimony. I’ve had my ass grabbed in the bar plenty of times, but I don’t know how someone can finger a woman in public without anyone noticing! Also, how does that happen? Were they making out and he decided he could go to third base? Or is this just like a flyby fingering? I find this just so strange and cringey. Drunk men do stupid things though.
Other details about this case are that the student was initially suspended after the rape allegations and banned from playing basketball, but he was able to successfully get a restraining order against the university approved by a judge who said that banning him from playing restricting his future career prospects because he will plan to go into the NBA after he graduates.
Illinois doesn’t have a good enough basketball team for this to make national news, but they played really well in the NCAA championships because this player was allowed to continue playing despite this open court case against him.
BIG-TIME shout out to Nancy's "Asia Argento's Time Is Up". The Shakespearean foreshadowing in the opening paragraph is a work of art. The heart is deceitful above all things meets perfectly at the intersection of Argento and JT LeRoy circa 2003. IYKYK
I always enjoy your interviews, but I did not expect to enjoy this one so much!
Unbelievable! Very informative podcast. It’s so important that this gets straightened out to clarify who did what.
It’s pronounced Fee’lim like in Philim Brady, the bard of Armagh
Awww, and here I was giving them a hard time for mispronouncing Sciorra and Weinstein. I'm sure my Irish ancestors were shaking their fist at the sky, but likely with a beer in the other hand, so they'll forgive me.
I started reading Simple Justice with Scott Greenfield (from this podcast) back when he was interviewed by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic & suggested then that the case was weaker than the media depicted. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/scott-greenfield/575707/
It was a destabilizing moment for me as I began to understand that the media was actively being deceptive in its coverage of the trial. I just wanted to also note that Joann Wypljewski of The Nation fought the trend with honest coverage. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/weinstein-trial-rape-manhattan/
Just wanted to add—thanks for this great podcast & the great coverage of the injustice of the Title IX rules. I really appreciate you all for pursuing the unpopular truth of this.