- Suddenly exposing Weinstein after decades of cover-ups seems absurd
- Weinstein deployed the same tactic as De Niro when ousted
- What happened to Weinstein and De Niro’s vaccine safety documentary?
The 15th annual Tribeca Film Festival was one to remember. It will long be remembered as the one whereas Tribeca co-founder and Hollywood legend, Robert De Niro, was condemned for attempting to show Andrew Wakefield’s vaccine safety documentary, Vaxxed. Filmmakers threatened to remove their films from Tribeca’s lineup if De Niro didn’t comply with the removal of the screening. And he most certainly complied.
However, De Niro went on to discuss his child’s Autism in public settings and eventually claimed that he’d be working on his own vaccine safety documentary with the now embattled Hollywood executive, Harvey Weinstein. And then things went crickets. De Niro suited up for the Liberals and began a massive anti-Trump bashing campaign, even threatening violence on multiple occasions. Rhetoric regarding the anti-vaccine or vaccine safety documentary was swept under the rug. De Niro, oddly, went from someone hoping to pay some sort of tribute to his child through promoting vaccine safety to attacking Trump, the same Trump who seemingly shares De Niro’s views over the matter.
PAUSE. Before we go any further, I’d like to note Weinstein’s immediate reactions to being called out for sexual improprieties to the NY Times.
“I’m making a movie about our president …”
“I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party.”
Weinstein’s immediate reaction to allegations of paying off at least 8 women is to attack Trump and the NRA? Isn’t that similar in scope to how De Niro handled his own mudslinging?
According to an interview with Vulture, De Niro seemed to care a lot about the matter prior to wanting to punch Trump.
“What I learned, first of all, there was a big reaction, which I didn’t see coming, and it was from filmmakers – supposedly, I have yet to find out who it was,” expressed the “Hands of Stone” actor. “I wanted to just know who they were, because to me there was no reason not to see the movie.”
It seems De Niro was attempting to learn more about who is detractors were.
“The movie is not hurting anybody. It says something. It said something to me that was valid. Maybe some things were inaccurate, but if the movie was 20 percent accurate, it was worth seeing,” said De Niro. “And they were saying it’s because of the filmmaker and he was discredited, but how was he discredited? By the medical establishment? There’s a lot going on that I still don’t understand, but it makes me question the whole thing, and the whole vaccine issue is a real one. It’s big money. So it did get attention. I was happy about that,” he added
“Something is there with vaccines, because they’re not tested in some ways the way other medicines are, and they’re just taken for granted and mandated in some states,” he explained. “And people do get sick from it. Not everybody, but certain people are sensitive, like anything, penicillin.”
“I’m working on something else,” De Niro said. “Harvey Weinstein and I are working on doing a documentary, but I don’t what to talk much about it, because when I talk about it, something happens. But that’s what we plan to try to do.”
How does one go from this impassioned a position to never mention it again, and instead, replacing it with the liberal mantra of “we hate Trump.”
De Niro states that he doesn’t want to talk about “it” because when he talks about “it,” he says, “something happens.”
Well, a lot of things have happened to his executive producer partner, Harvey Weinstein, in the last few days. He’s been cast out by Hollywood’s liberals for admitting to instances of sexual improprieties. But hasn’t this been known for decades? Many Hollywood actresses readily agreed to take cash settlements after seeing Weinstein in a robe or being asked to massage him, rather than help other women who could have been warned of Weinstein’s shameful actions. Apparently, it was more important to take a bribe than it was to help fellow women in the industry.
Suddenly, it seems, the Liberals, many of which who used Weinstein for both acting careers and settlements, hate him and want him cast out.
But why now?
Is it possible that Weinstein was nearing the conclusion of a vaccine safety documentary? If so, he potentially fell out of the protective graces of liberal elites causing them to oust him. They covered up his situation for years. Ashley Judd prominently attacked President Donald Trump over the Hollywood Access tape but failed to mention that a major Hollywood producer sexually harassed her? One of these men personally asked Judd for a massage while scantily outfitted in a robe. The other had nothing to do with Judd. One of these men clearly fell into a protective liberal chamber, the other did not.
According to an article in the KC Star
Twenty years ago Weinstein invited actress Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what she thought was a business breakfast meeting in the lobby, Judd told the Times. When she found out they were meeting in his suite she ordered cereal, she said, so she could eat quickly and leave.
When she got to the room Weinstein was wearing a bathrobe. He asked whether he could give her a massage. She said no. How about a shoulder rub? She declined that, too.
Then, Judd told the Times, he asked whether she would watch him take a shower.
“I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times, and he always came back at me with some new ask,” Judd told the newspaper. “It was all this bargaining, this coercive bargaining.”
Feeling “panicky, trapped,” and trying to escape without insulting the powerful Weinstein, she joked that if Weinstein wanted to touch her she would first have to win an Oscar in one of his movies.
“Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly,” Judd told the Times.
Did the well dry up of Weinstein’s goods and services to a point that Judd finally cared a bit less about torching him? Or did Weinstein end up rattling liberal cages by being associated with a non-liberal agenda item?
Meryl Streep and George Clooney claim they knew nothing of Weinstein’s improprieties, now they are upset. Matt Damon and Russell Crow helped to cover up Weinstein’s actions in 2004. Now they are missing in action. Actress Rose McGowan benefited to the tune of $100k, but now she claims that went to a “rape crisis center.” Wouldn’t it have better-served women to NOT take the money and publically out this elite? If you didn’t truly want the money and weren’t worried about your career over that of helping women, what could possibly have been the issue here?
“Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly,” Judd told the Times. When she says “women,” she apparently doesn’t mean Streep. The NBC show 30 Rock, backed by Tina Fey’s writing prowess, made a joke about Weinstein years back. So did Tina Fey know? Well, 30 Rock featured Bill Cosby impropriety jokes in 2009, so do the math and play with the logic yourself.
Something triggered the elites to out him, but that trigger remains a mystery. There is no information regarding De Niro and Weinstein’s documentary following De Niro’s announcement of it in 2016. De Niro has since joined the anti-Trump choir and he seems to be in the good graces of the elites. One thing is for sure, challenging the Liberal elites can be a costly venture. And that helps ensure that the cycle continues to breed. As well, so long as you sing the liberal party line, you can likely get away with abuses of young women.
So what triggered liberals to finally sell this man out? If not his connection to the production of an anti-vaccine or vaccine safety documentary, what? I have a difficult time believing that liberals just decided to do the right thing out of thin air.