> Weinstein was far more powerful and thus dangerous to his potential denouncers. Really. Interesting. So you claim that e.g. The New York Times was weaker tha

> Weinstein was far more powerful and thus dangerous to his potential denouncers. Really. Interesting. So you claim that e.g. The New York Times was weaker than a studio head? Sexual deprevity in Hollywood has never been a "secret", but it doesn't help if your "stars" -- which are then promoted to soft politics propaganda work -- are shown to be individuals that tolerate anything for fame and riches. And equally, it doesn't help advancing various social engineering projects if the heads of studios that push JUNK to your children are shown to be sexual predators. The actual question of interest here is what is being covered up that throwing Weinstein under the bus got the green light.