NY Times: O’Reilly Paid Lis Wiehl $32 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Claim Prior to Fox Contract Renewal

What happened between former Fox News analyst Lis Wiehl and Bill O’Reilly is known only to them. O’Reilly certainly has shown on a number of occasions that he’s a jerk.

But $32 million given to a woman who suffered no physical or mental impairment because she had to deal with a jerk is obscenely excessive.

New York Times via NOLA

O’Reilly settled new harassment claims, then Fox renewed his contract

By The New York Times
Last January, six months after Fox News ousted its chairman amid a sexual harassment scandal, the network’s top-rated host at the time, Bill O’Reilly, struck a $32 million agreement with a longtime network analyst to settle new sexual harassment allegations, according to two people briefed on the matter — an extraordinarily large amount for such cases.

Although the deal has not been previously made public, the network’s parent company, Twenty-First Century Fox, acknowledges it was aware of the woman’s complaints about O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.

It was at least the sixth agreement — and by far the largest — made by either O’Reilly or the company to settle harassment allegations against him. Despite that record, Twenty-First Century Fox began contract negotiations with O’Reilly, and in February granted him a four-year extension that paid $25 million a year.

Interviews with people familiar with the settlement and documents obtained by The New York Times show how the company tried and ultimately failed to contain the second wave of a sexual harassment crisis that initially burst into public view the previous summer and cost the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, and eventually O’Reilly their jobs.

In January, the reporting shows, Rupert Murdoch and his sons, Lachlan and James, the top executives at Twenty-First Century Fox, made a business calculation to stand by O’Reilly despite his most recent, and potentially most explosive, harassment dispute.

Their decision came as the company was trying to convince its employees, its board and the public that it had cleaned up the network’s workplace culture. At the same time, they were determined to hold on to O’Reilly, whose value to the network increased after the departure of another prominent host, Megyn Kelly.

But by April, the Murdochs decided to jettison O’Reilly as some of the settlements became public and posed a significant threat to their business empire.

Early that month, The Times reported on five settlements involving O’Reilly, leading advertisers to boycott his show and spawning protests calling for his ouster. About the same time, the O’Reilly settlements arose as an issue in Twenty-First Century Fox’s attempt to buy the European satellite company Sky.

In addition, federal prosecutors who had been investigating the network’s handling of sexual harassment complaints against Ailes had asked for material related to allegations involving O’Reilly, according to an internal Fox email obtained by The Times.

“Their legal theory has been that we hid the fact that we had a problem with Roger,” Gerson Zweifach, Fox’s general counsel, wrote in the email, referring to the prosecutors and Ailes, “and now it will be applied to O’Reilly, and they will insist on full knowledge of all complaints about O’Reilly’s behavior in the workplace, regardless of who settled them.”

He warned the Murdochs that they should expect details from the January settlement to become public. Six days later, O’Reilly was fired.

In a statement, Twenty-First Century Fox said it was not privy to the amount of the settlement and regarded O’Reilly’s January settlement, which was reached with a 15-year Fox News analyst named Lis Wiehl, as a personal issue between the two of them.

LIS WIEHL.

Regarding O’Reilly’s contract extension, the company said Fox News “surely would have wanted to renew” O’Reilly’s contract, noting that “he was the biggest star in cable TV.”

It emphasized that provisions were added to the new contract that allowed for his dismissal if new allegations or other relevant information arose. “The company subsequently acted based on the terms of this contract,” the statement said.

In an interview Wednesday, O’Reilly, at times combative and defiant, said there was no merit to any of the allegations against him. “I never mistreated anyone,” he said, adding that he had resolved matters privately because he wanted to protect his children from the publicity.

“It’s politically and financially motivated,” he said of the public outcry over the allegations against him, “and we can prove it with shocking information, but I’m not going to sit here in a courtroom for a year and a half and let my kids get beaten up every single day of their lives by a tabloid press that would sit there, and you know it.”

He declined to specifically address questions about the settlement with Wiehl or any others.

O’Reilly’s lawyer, Fredric S. Newman, described his client’s relationship with Wiehl as an 18-year friendship in which she at times gave him legal advice.

Asked about the allegation of a nonconsensual sexual relationship, a representative for O’Reilly, Mark Fabiani, said that Twenty-First Century Fox was “well aware” Wiehl had signed a sworn affidavit “renouncing all allegations against him,” adding that after receiving the document Fox News offered O’Reilly “a record breaking contract.”

Wiehl’s $32 million deal dwarfs other previously known sexual harassment settlements at Fox News. The largest of those was the $20 million payout former host Gretchen Carlson received after she sued Ailes in July 2016.

The settlement with Wiehl was more than three times the amount of any of O’Reilly’s previously known deals; in 2004, he had settled a lawsuit with a producer, Andrea Mackris, for about $9 million. Publicly known harassment settlements involving O’Reilly have totaled about $45 million.

Read Bill’s response here.

Judge Susan Bolton Screws Sheriff Joe Arpaio One More Time–Denies Conviction Erasure

In Texas a person convicted of certain crimes can have his conviction expunged if he stays out of trouble and pays the state a hefty fee.

I’m not sure about Arizona, where Sheriff Joe is based. But he’s looking to have his conviction erased.

His lawyers will have to figure out the next steps to take. The man would never have been convicted were it not for vindictive liberal judge Susan Bolton.

Tucson

Saying the president can’t erase facts, a federal judge on Thursday rejected a bid by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to have all record of his criminal conviction wiped out.

Susan Bolton said she already dismissed the criminal contempt case against Arpaio following the decision by President Trump to issue a pardon. That saved the former sheriff, who had been found guilty, from the possibility of going to jail for up to six months.

But Bolton rebuffed Arpaio’s claim that the pardon also entitled him to have the entire conviction erased.

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping,” Bolton wrote, quoting earlier court precedent.

“The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge continued. “It did not, however, revise the historical facts of this case.”

Arpaio, however, is not willing to simply enjoy his freedom.

“It’s not going to be dropped,” he told Capitol Media Services.

Jack Wilenchik, one of his attorneys, said the relief the sheriff is seeking is important.

He said Arpaio intended to appeal his conviction, if for no other reason than Bolton had said he was not entitled to a jury trial. Wilenchik said he believes Arpaio would have won.

But now, with the pardon, there’s no opportunity to appeal, meaning the record of the conviction remains. And that, he said would be something that could be used against the former sheriff in any future criminal or civil case.

OBSERVE THE FAMOUS PINK UNDERWEAR IN JOE’S JAIL.

The conviction stems from the years’ old case filed against Arpaio and the department he led, accusing the agency of having policies of stopping motorists who look like they might be in the country illegally, whether or not they had violated any state laws. Deputies then would hand the people over to federal immigration officials.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow found Arpaio and the department guilty of illegal racial profiling and he ordered it to stop. Snow later concluded the department violated his orders and referred Arpaio, two aides and a former attorney for charges of criminal contempt.

The Department of Justice, then under President Obama, decided to pursue only Arpaio. And Bolton, who handled that case, used his own words and press releases to show he intentionally ignored Snow’s orders.

But before he could be sentenced, Trump interceded. And Bolton concluded that ended the case.

Wilenchik, however, said that’s not enough.

He said the conviction should be nullified. And Wilenchik said Bolton is misstating his arguments in asking that any evidence of the case against Arpaio be wiped out.

“We’re not asking to undo facts,” he said.

“We’re not asking for expungement,” Wilenchik continued. “There’s no such thing in federal law.”

What Wilenchik said he does want is a recognition that the case is now legally moot. He said it’s no different than if someone dies before sentencing or having a chance to appeal.

“The whole case gets undone,” he said, with the conviction nullified.

But Bolton said that’s not the way things work. She said the right of the president to pardon the former sheriff is different — and separate from — what actually occurred in court.

More to the point, she said what Arpaio wants ignores the legal nature of a pardon.

First, she said, it must be accepted. At that point, Bolton wrote, the defendant is no longer subject to punishment and all of his or her civil rights are restored.

“It does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings,” Bolton said. In fact, the judge said there is case law showing that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt — and that acceptance is “a confession of it.”

In this case, Bolton said, Trump issued the pardon and Arpaio accepted it. And as she reads the law, that ends the case, but does not entitle the former sheriff to have his underlying conviction wiped out.

That conviction apparently has not dimmed the former sheriff’s political pull. On Thursday, when contacted by Capitol Media Services, he was in California, campaigning on behalf of congressional candidate Omar Navarro who hopes to unseat incumbent Democrat Maxine Waters.

Saying the president can’t erase facts, a federal judge this afternoon rejected a bid by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to have all records of his criminal conviction wiped out.

Susan Bolton said she already dismissed the criminal contempt case against Arpaio following the decision by President Trump to issue a pardon. That saved the former sheriff, who had been found guilty, from the possibility of going to jail.

But Bolton rebuffed Arpaio’s claim that the pardon also entitled him to have the entire conviction erased.

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping,” Bolton wrote, quoting earlier court precedent.

“The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge continued. “It did not, however, revise the historical facts of this case.”

Lawyer Disbarred for Criticizing Faggots is Asking for Law License Back, Still Must Pay $3.5 Million Judgement

ANDREW SHERVILL. DESTROYED BY LEGAL SYSTEM FOR CRITICIZING GAYS.

This is one of the most incredible stories you’re ever likely to read.

It proves that there is no rule of law in America. The court system is populated by (((Communists))) who will destroy you if you give them a chance.

An anti-gay blogger who thought he had First Amendment rights has been utterly reduced to nothing. He had been a successful attorney, but he didn’t count on how the law is what an evil cabal of filth says it is.

Mlive

ANN ARBOR, MI – A former state assistant attorney general known for his anti-gay writing about a former University of Michigan student body president is appealing the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board’s decision to revoke his law license.

Andrew Shirvell, whose disbarment was ordered by the board in March, has a hearing for a petition for review on Wednesday, Oct. 18, before the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.

In October 2016, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board said the former state assistant attorney general committed misconduct when he harassed Christopher Armstrong, the university’s first openly gay student body president. Shirvell was fired in 2010.

Shirvell believes the panel responsible for revoking his law license back in March was biased against him.

“Given that my case is one of the most politically-charged to have ever come before a Hearing Panel … I cannot imagine a more biased panel of attorneys who sat in judgment of me,” Shirvell said in a news release. “With Donald Trump now in the White House, conservative Christians like me will no longer tolerate
being railroaded by the liberal elite. It is time for the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board to overturn the Hearing Panel’s biased determinations and restore my law license.”

In 2012, a jury found Shirvell had stalked, defamed and invaded Armstrong’s privacy and Shirvell was ordered to pay $4.5 million.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment against Shirvell in February 2015.

The court of appeal’s decision came with a dismissal of damages awarded for false light invasion of privacy, but he still owed Armstrong $3.5 million stemming from the 2012 jury verdict.

In January 2015, the state of appeals court denied Shirvell’s request for unemployment benefits, saying his firing by then-attorney general Mike Cox was justified because Shirvell’s Facebook posts and gay-bashing blog negatively impacted the agency’s credibility.

At the time, Cox said Shirvell was not fired for exercising his First Amendment rights, but for lying to investigators during a disciplinary hearing and for posting attacks online during work hours.

Shirvell expressed his views as a private citizen, but the court said the First Amendment did not protect him because the state provided evidence that his conduct affected government services.

The background on this travesty of justice can be read in this 2010 CNN article. It shows that Shervill did nothing that any decent person wouldn’t do.

My mind is still reeling over this case. It deserves much more attention than its gotten from the alt-right and conservative Christians.

Harvey Weinstein expelled from motion picture academy

At least some of the pukes who gave the boot to Harvey knew exactly what he had been doing and said nothing.

These hypocrites do not deserve a break. Let (((Hollywood))) continue to devour more of its own.

We see how quickly Jews will turn on their fellow Jews when the chips are down and shekels are at stake.

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times

mbattled film mogul Harvey Weinstein — a once-dominant force in the Academy Awards who rewrote the rules of Oscar campaigning — has been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in response to mounting allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him.

The film academy’s 54-member board of governors, which includes such industry luminaries as Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Kathleen Kennedy and Whoopi Goldberg, voted in an emergency meeting on Saturday morning to remove Weinstein from the organization’s ranks in an unprecedented public rebuke of a prominent industry figure. The move marked the latest blow in Weinstein’s stunning downfall and, in symbolic terms, amounts to a virtual expulsion from Hollywood itself.

In removing Weinstein from its ranks, the academy said in a statement, “We do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over. What’s at issue here is a deeply troubling problem that has no place in our society. The Board continues to work to establish ethical standards of conduct that all Academy members will be expected to exemplify.”

Since reports of Weinstein’s alleged misconduct toward dozens of women first surfaced in the New York Times on Oct. 5, the academy had been under increasing pressure to take action against him. On Tuesday, the National Organization for Women publicly called for Weinstein’s removal, stating, “A sexual predator doesn’t deserve the privilege of an academy membership — and all the opportunities to wield outsize power that come with it.”

Don’t give the Clintons and other high profile Democrats a pass either.

Twenty-one members of the film academy’s board are women — as is its chief executive, Dawn Hudson — and in recent years the organization has taken steps to dramatically increase the number of women in its historically overwhelmingly male ranks.

In the past several days, a number of academy members expressed their feelings both privately and publicly that Weinstein had no place in the film industry’s most prestigious organization. CBS Films President Terry Press, who regularly battled Weinstein on the awards trail during her tenure as a marketing executive at DreamWorks, vowed in a Facebook post to quit the academy if he was allowed to remain. “The idea that anyone would give him a second chance or entertain the notion that he can change is beyond absurd,” wrote Press.

Even Weinstein’s brother, Bob — with whom he ran Miramax Films and then Weinstein Co. — said in an interview published Saturday in the Hollywood Reporter that he felt the academy should expel him, adding that he planned to write a note to the group to that effect.

But within the academy some wrestled with the decision, fearing that it could set a precedent that would require the academy to police its members’ behavior going forward. As many have pointed out in recent days, other Hollywood figures who have come under attack for their treatment of women — including Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson — remain members of the academy in good standing.

The academy’s bylaws give the board of governors free rein to expel members “for cause,” but that power has very rarely been exercised. The last member to be banished from the group was actor Carmine Caridi, who was booted in 2004 for sharing promotional copies of films that were later pirated. Sources close to the academy say that other members had been more quietly suspended in years past for selling their tickets to the Oscars ceremony, but nothing ever rose to the level of attention surrounding Weinstein.

You see the problem:

It’s time to clean house.

As Trump would say, “Drain the swamp.”

NYPD on Harvey Weinstein: “He is a super predator.”

I counted somewhere around 25 stories relating to Harvey Weinstein at the Daily Mail alone. Harvey is getting his 15 minutes of fame in spades.

To be honest I had never heard of him until his sexual harassment scandal broke–when was it?–10 days ago.

At one site or another I’ve seen headlines saying Harvey is in rehab in Arizona, not Europe as originally reported, that he’s suicidal, that Rose Mcgowan was suspended from Twitter for calling him a rapist, that Hillary Clinton will be giving his donation dollars to a charity, and many more, including that the FBI has been ordered by the Trump administration to investigate Harvey.

The most credible threat to Harvey’s freedom may be the investigation being conducted by the New York police department.

New York Post

The NYPD has Harvey Weinstein back in its sights — dispatching detectives to search for evidence against the disgraced movie mogul who’s been accused of rape and sex assault by at least three women, The Post has learned.

Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce on Wednesday ordered investigators in the Special Victims Division “to endeavor to identify and locate and interview any potential victims” of the disgraced movie producer, a high-ranking police source said.

“He’s a super predator. His conduct shows he’s been at this a long time, and he’s a professional at it,” another police official said.

“He’s been at this so long, there’s no way there are not other victims out there. Imagine how many promises he’s made to these young women who were trying to make it into the industry.”

Boyce’s directive followed a blockbuster report by the New Yorker magazine, which on Tuesday published accusations from three women who accused Weinstein of raping or otherwise sexually abusing them.

One of the women, Lucia Evans, said she was a Middlebury College student and aspiring actress when Weinstein approached her at the since-shuttered Cipriani Upstairs club in Soho in 2004.

LUCIA EVANS.

Evans, now 34, said she later accepted an assistant’s invitation to meet Weinstein at his office, where he raised the possibility of casting her in a movie.

“At that point, after that, is when he assaulted me,” Evans said.

“I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t….He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.”

Although New York at the time had a five-year statute of limitations for prosecuting felony sex crimes, the incident is covered by a 2006 law that removed that restriction, officials said.

Evans didn’t return messages, and police sources said she may be outside the country.

Her dad declined to comment at his home outside Albany.

In addition to Evans, actress Asia Argento also told the New Yorker that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 1997 inside the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc on the French Riviera, and an unidentified woman alleged that Weinstein raped her, but the magazine didn’t say when or where.

ASIA ARGENTO.

In 2015, Weinstein avoided prosecution in the groping of a Filipina-Italian model inside his Tribeca office, even though cops secretly recorded him apologizing to Ambra Batillana Gutierrez, then 22, while trying to coax her into a room inside the Tribeca Grand Hotel.

“Why yesterday you touched my breast?” Gutierrez asked him, according to an audio clip posted online by the New Yorker.

“Oh, please. I’m sorry, Just come on in. I’m used to that,” Weinstein replied.

AMBRA GUTIERREZ.

Embattled Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. on Wednesday defended his decision not to charge Weinstein, saying: “Our sex-crimes prosecutors made the determination that this was not going to be a provable case and the decision was made not to go forward.”

At one point, Vance very familiarly referred to Weinstein by his first name only.

“We’re focused on the facts, not whether people liked Harvey,” the DA told reporters.

NYPD sources have expressed outrage over Vance’s decision, and one cop said that if presented with new cases, “The feeling is, this time they wouldn’t be so quick not to charge.”

Weinstein, meanwhile, hired high-powered Los Angeles criminal-defense lawyer Blair Berk to represent him, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Her list of troubled celebrity clients includes Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan, Kiefer Sutherland and Kanye West.

Also, the University of Buffalo said it was moving to revoke an honorary “doctorate of humane letters” it awarded Weinstein in 2000, 30 years after he dropped out.

In announcing its desire to strip Weinstein of the honor, the school noted that he “personally never made a gift to the university,” but that the Walt Disney Co. donated $22,750 on behalf of the Miramax film company after buying it from Weinstein and his younger brother, Bob.

Weinstein has denied any “non-consensual sex.” A spokeswoman didn’t return a request for comment for this story.

Politico is reporting that Hillary Clinton says that she had no idea that Harvey was a sexual predator.

I believer her.

She didn’t know Bill was a sexual predator either.

Right? Right, Hillary???!!!

CLUELESS HILLARY CLINTON.

Harvey Weinstein’s Wife is Leaving Him as He Flies to Europe for Sex Addiction Rehab While Obama and Hillary FINALLY Condemn the Muh Dikking Jew

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. HARVEY WEINSTEIN WITH WIFE GEORGIA CHAPMAN.

As Harvey Weinstein flies to Europe (in a private jet, of course), there’s the possibility that he will join fellow Jew and convicted pedophile Roman Polanski where he can’t be extradicted to the U.S.

Three women have stepped forward to claim that he raped them. He may not wish to return to the States to get the “Bill Cosby treatment” by the courts.

Weinstein and his pal (((Anthony Weiner))) have something in common besides an unhealthy sexual appetite. Their wives have left them.

The lag among Hollyweird lefties in condemning the ugly monster exposes the hypocritical rats as the insincere suck ups they are.

Daily Mail

Harvey Weinstein’s wife, Georgina Chapman, has announced that she is leaving the movie mogul after a string of women claimed that he had sexually harassed or assaulted them.

‘My heart breaks for all the women who have suffered tremendous pain because of these unforgivable actions. I have chosen to leave my husband,’ she told People.

‘Caring for my young children is my first priority and I ask the media for privacy at this time.’

At the same time as Chapman made the announcement, Weinstein made a departure of his own – to Europe, by private jet.

There he will undergo therapy for sex addiction and behavioral issues, TMZ reported.

Weinstein will submit himself to a live-in facility, in which he hopes he will be able to clean up his act and return to the US.

According to TMZ’s source, the hotheaded producer is surprisingly calm about the chaos that has beset him this week.

‘He has his moments where there are bursts, but for the most part he’s pretty calm,’ the insider said.

Chapman, 41, met Weinstein, 65, in 2003 and they married four years later, going on to have two children, India Pearl, seven, and Dashiell Max Robert, four.

She is also the co-founder of high-end women’s fashion line Marchesa – and before the announcement of her split from Weinstein, sources said that she was struggling to save the brand from being tarnished by her husband’s allegations.

But leaving him might present other problems for the beleaguered British designer.

A source told People that she is terrified that the line, which is loved by many of the women who have starred in her husband’s films, will founder without his help.

That’s because he – as one of the heaviest hitters in Hollywood – has access to the A-list stars that can keep the brand in the public eye.

A TV fashion source said: ‘Harvey is the one with all the friends.

It’s going to be a tough time for her and Marchesa’.

I wonder what attracted beautiful Georgia to squat, ugly Harvey. I guess it was his sparkling personality and his high moral character.

A New York fashion publicist who did not want to be named told the Hollywood reporter: ‘No star is ever going to want to wear the brand again.’

Weinstein is good friends with Vogue editor Anna Wintour and the two have co-hosted fashion and Democratic political fundraising events.

Chapman and Weinstein are regular guests at Wintour’s annual Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute galas.

Chapman’s departure will likely come as a shock to Weinstein, who had boasted last week that his wife was ‘standing by me 100 per cent’.

‘Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,’ Obama said in a statement.

‘Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status.’

‘We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories,’ the former president continued.

‘And we all need to build a culture – including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect – so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future.’

He did not say whether he would return the money raised for his campaign.

Hillary Clinton also spoke out on Tuesday, saying she was ‘shocked and appalled’ about the stories that had emerged about Weinstein.

“Asking for it:” Jew Fashion Designer Donna Karan Blames Harvey Weinstein’s Women Victims for Dressing Slutty

DONNA KARAN. OY VEY. THE UGLY!

Another example of Jewish in-group solidarity reared its ugly head (literally in the case of Donna Karan) when she defended sexual predator Harvey Weinstein.

However, now she’s apologized for defending the creepy Neanderthal.

First, the praise for Harvey. Then, the weaseling out by Karan.

Daily Mail

Fashion designer Donna Karan is standing by Harvey Weinstein and has suggested his alleged victims may have been ‘asking for it’ by the way the women act and dress.

During a red carpet interview at the CinéFashion Film Awards on Sunday, the DKNY creator was asked to weigh in on the scandal hours after the disgraced film mogul was fired from his company.

Unlike many Hollywood stars and celebs, Karan did not condemn the 65-year-old, who has been accused of sexually harassing multiple woman over the span of decades, and instead pointed the finger at his accusers.

She told a reporter: ‘I think we have to look at ourselves. Obviously, the treatment of women all over the world is something that has always had to be identified. Certainly in the country of Haiti where I work, in Africa, in the developing world, it’s been a hard time for women.

‘To see it here in our own country is very difficult, but I also think how do we display ourselves? How do we present ourselves as women? What are we asking? Are we asking for it by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?

‘And what are we throwing out to our children today about how to dance and how to perform and what to wear? How much should they show?’

Karan’s comments are striking as a legend in the fashion world and having designed women’s clothing for decades.

Her comments come as many of Weinstein’s former friends, including Judi Dench and Meryl Streep, have denounced the producer based on the bombshell allegations.

She added that she knows Weinstein’s wife Georgina Chapman and described the couple as ‘wonderful people.’

When asked whether Hollywood has been ‘busted’, she replied with a smile: ‘I don’t think it’s only Harvey Weinstein.

OK, Hollywood women. It’s time to out the other sexual predators that think they’re above the law and above decency.

Now, let’s see how a Jewish woman tries to wiggle out of her defense of Harvey.

Fox News

Fashion mogul Donna Karan is apologizing after praising Harvey Weinstein following his firing from his film company amid allegations of sexual harassment lasting decades.

In a statement Monday, Karan said her remarks were taken out of context and don’t represent her feelings. She says she believes “sexual harassment is NOT acceptable and this is an issue that MUST be addressed once and for all regardless of the individual.”

Karan on Sunday suggested to The Daily Mail that Weinstein’s alleged victims may have been ‘asking for it’ in a rambling interview that questioned the way women dressed and how they present themselves to the world.

The DKNY designer was in Los Angeles for the CineFashion Film Awards and told a reporter that, “’To see it here in our own country is very difficult, but I also think how do we display ourselves? How do we present ourselves as women? What are we asking? Are we asking for it by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?

Meanwhile, among those weighing in were his longtime allies and beneficiaries Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Kevin Smith and Judi Dench. They spoke up with a combination of disgust over his alleged behavior and remorse or defensiveness over their own business entanglements with him. Even the actors’ labor union SAG-AFTRA joined the chorus in condemning the disgraced movie mogul, calling reports of his alleged conduct “abhorrent and unacceptable.”

Director Kevin Smith, whose movies “Clerks” and “Chasing Amy” were produced by Weinstein, noted on Twitter that the producer financed the first 14 years of his career.

“Now I know while I was profiting, others were in terrible pain,” Smith wrote. “It makes me feel ashamed.”

Weinstein, 65, was fired Sunday by the Weinstein Co., the studio he co-founded, three days after a bombshell New York Times expose alleged decades of crude sexual behavior on his part toward female employees and actresses, including Ashley Judd. The Times said at least eight settlements had been reached with women.

Streep, who once called Weinstein “God” while accepting the Golden Globe for “The Iron Lady,” condemned his alleged conduct as “inexcusable” while also saying she did not know about it before.

So far, neither the Obamas nor the Clintons have joined in the condemnation of the Jew who couldn’t resist the shiksa. Watch Michael Obama praise their friend.