HARVEY WEINSTEIN: WHY AGAIN WAS HE SENT TO PRISON FOR 23 YEARS?

ICHEOKU says the fact that Tara Reade is a woman and was not believed has forced ICHEOKU to revisit the Harvey Weinstein ordeal and ask where was the justice therein? If the woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual molestation cannot be believed, why should the women who similarly accused Harvey Weinstein be believed? Why was the believability of women not be a one-cap fits all standard for all men accused by women of sexually assaulting and molesting them. It should be an all or nothing standard, either to believe all women or not to believe any woman at all. 

Why would Joe Biden walk when Harvey Weinstein is caged for 23 years or are politically exposed persons somewhat special breed of people that they enjoy greater immunity than those who finance their campaigns and support their runs for elected office. It would seem that Harvey Weinstein was used and dumped by all those politicians who cavorted his wealth to help fund their election campaigns, only to abandon him in his hour of greatest need. Where were the Clintons, the Obamas and so many other politicians who benefitted from Harvey Weinstein's political campaign contribution largess when he needed them to pull needed strings to spring him out of the jaws of the law. And the women who lined up to bear testimony against him, some of them false of course, they too used and dumped him as they suddenly forgot how he made them who they are and without him, they would probably not have succeeded in Hollywood. 

These women were possessed by a maddening urge to get even with the man who insisted on first sleeping with them, as a quid pro quo, before giving them movies casting roles in Hollywood. So impassioned, they screamed vengeance and went forth to levy it on their former mentor. They demanded his head on a platter but never said a word about all the good things in life which they benefitted by surrendering their bodies to satisfy Harvey Weinstein's libido. They allowed him to have his way with them in order to to get somewhere in Hollywood, only to later change their mind and claim that he sexually assaulted and raped them. If indeed he actually molested and raped them and these women in fact believed it was rape and sexual molestation at the time it took place, why did they not immediately report him to the authorities. Why did they wait for several years later to bring up the issue. 

They never explained why they got the movie casting roles which they got in Hollywood, after all they were not the only women in Hollywood who possibly auditioned for those roles. If they played a fast one, a quickie with Harvey Weinstein, to get those roles, why was that not a sufficient consideration to have purchased their consent. These women were not minors at the time these dalliances took place, they were fully grown adults and none of them was an imbecile incapable of making an informed consent. So what exactly was the problem again that two adults had a sexual relationship and one of them later changed her mind and alleged sexual assault. They did not refuse, reject, resist, walk away or fought back nor did they report the matter to the police following soon after, but they are being believed that what took place then were without their consent. 

These women definitely were not the only women in Hollywood nor were they the only women Harvey Weinstein ever propositioned in Hollywood. Many other women who were  similarly asked for such a reciprocal favor probably said no, rejected his entreaties and simply walked away with their honor in tact. They sacrificed their prospective movie roles and probable nice career in Hollywood rather than give in to Harvey Weinstein's indecent proposals. Their dignity and self respect were worth more to them than getting movie casting roles in Hollywood and they chose to maintain them rather than sleep their way around with Harvey Weinstein. ICHEOKU says how about these chaste women. But the society would rather listen to the amoral women who slept their way to the top in Hollywood only to later change their minds to allege unwanted sexual assault. 

ICHEOKU says at what time exactly did they realize that they were raped or have been raped? Was it when they were actively seeking those movie casting roles and used sex as a springboard or after becoming rich and/or famous? Why were those women allowed to eat their cakes and have it back. Would those women have risen up in Hollywood if not for Harvey Weinstein and would Harvey Weinstein have given them the casting roles if they did not sleep with him. There were exchanges of favors, movie roles for sex, yet Harvey Weinstein is serving 23 years for having sex with these women while the women are allowed to keep the fame and fortune which accrued to them as a result. Why should the women be allowed to keep their own benefits but Harvey Weinstein is not allowed to also keep his own benefit. 

Is it possible that these women treated it as just sex and that having sex with Harvey Weinstein is a golden ticket in Hollywood. So, they had sex with Harvey Weinstein and they got movie casting roles from Harvey Weinstein. Both parties fully performed their contractual obligation to each other and the matter should have ended there. But no, one party changed their mind, repudiated the agreement, while still keeping the supplied consideration from Harvey Weinstein which induced them to have sex with him. If actually evaluated in the context of a quid pro quod arrangement, Harvey Weinstein should not have been convicted of these dalliances. It was a pure exchange of favors: the women yielded sex and he opened the doors of Hollywood for them. It appears that inducement for sex suddenly became such an egregious crime that a man who did it was severely punished with 23 years imprisonment. 

If these women were not somewhat complicit, convinced that it was a necessary rite of passage in Hollywood, a sacrifice which they must make in order to get somewhere in Hollywood, why did they not walk away. Why did they not reject his overtures, fight back and call the police soon after the sexual encounters took place as any innocent rape victim is expected to normally do. It would have been a different situation eliciting outright condemnation and demand for his head on a platter had these women been duped by Harvey Weinstein by his not performing his own part of the bargain after having his way with them. But each party got their term fully satisfied, only for one party to be allowed to change their mind and allege that what took place was not their will. 

Anyway, the jury of his peers have preempted and foreclosed any further arguments in defense of Harvey Weinstein. They have adjudged him guilty as charged and he is now serving a 23 years prison sentence. All ICHEOKU is doing here is merely an after the fact brain banter, not that It will change anything. ICHEOKU is only exploring a different defense theory of a mutual arrangement in which both parties satisfactorily performed their undertaking to each other, which should not have been a criminal act. The mutual exchange of considerations should have destroyed the intent element required for a crime, as Harvey Weinstein's state of mind was that he was getting his own bargained for benefit, sexual gratification, not that he was raping these women. The benefits received by these women should also have vacated their complaint that it was against their will, because they gave sex to him in exchange for getting movie casting roles in Hollywood. 

ICHEOKU says has no problem with choices which adults make, but detests a party to an agreement changing their mind so belatedly to make a complaint that it was against their will while still enjoying the benefits of the bargain. This is double dealing. These women had a choice to say no but were blinded by the allure of fame and fortune which Harvey Weinstein dangled before them. It is akin to reeling in a fish with a bait, should the fisherman be blamed for baiting the fish or the fish for being baited. Had the fish ignored the bait, it would not have been on the dinner plate. But no, it is the fisher man that is being harangued for putting a bait before the fish, begging the question, where is the justice for Harvey Weinstein or does he not deserve justice simply because he insisted that his movie casting roles came with a price, doing him sexual favors. 

For those people who argue that no implied consent should be read into the women's involvement, ICHEOKU says where was their concurrent adverse reaction against what took place. For others who argue that those women had a right to earn a living and did what they had to do, the reason they slept with Harvey Weinstein, ICHEOKU says earning a living is not constricted to only from Hollywood or courtesy of Harvey Weinstein. There are other ways to still earn a living short of sleeping with Harvey Weinstein and there were many other women who Harvey Weinstein propositioned but who turned him down. These women did not starve to death but found a way to maintain their upkeep while still keeping their honor in tact. But the get it at all cost women, who had it both ways, are being treated as if they had no involvement whatsoever in what happened. The pressure of the #MeToo trouble makers weighted heavily against Harvey Weinstein and it led to his conviction. 

At worse, Harvey Weinstein's conduct could have been immoral, reprehensible and odious; but certainly not criminal. People trade sex for favors all the time. Even some women call it the art of using what they have to get what they want. The conferred benefit by Harvey Weinstein should have been enough to input implied consent in these women and removed the conduct from the sphere of criminality. There was a reason they had sex with Harvey Weinstein not that Harvey Weinstein had sex with them against their will. People enter into odd bargains all the time and desperate people do desperate things, but should that make an otherwise purely transactional conduct criminal? 

A party to such a bargain who fulfilled his own part of the bargain should not be punished for receiving his own bargained for benefit. The inducement was not so unconscionable as to be so egregious a bargain to make. Those women were adults with full mental capacity and they had the choice to walk away. Also, unlike Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein did not drug any of those women to incapacitate or overwhelm their free will. So, what exactly was the beef here that sent a man away for 23 long years. 

Baring a successful appeal, the fate of Harvey Weinstein has been sealed. He is now a convicted sex offender serving a 23 years prison term. His conviction will put a further chill in many relationships between men and women in continuation of the battle of the sexes. Many men would be more circumspect in dealing with women and might become even reluctant in hiring women in order to avoid too much exposure to the wrath of the #MeToo women firing squad. 

The question should have been whether Harvey Weinstein had the right to negotiate getting sexual favors from these women with granting them access into Hollywood. He was found guilty of having sex with adults who later changed their minds and alleged rape. They succeeded in putting Harvey Weinstein away in prison, a convicted sexual pervert and he will be there for 23 long years unless he is freed on appeal. A man was convicted on the testimonies of some women who were so motivated by their vaulting ambition to make it big in Hollywood that they succumbed to fleshy temptations. They wanted what Harvey Weinstein had and Harvey Weinstein wanted something from them in return, but his own conduct was criminal? 

Harvey Weinstein's downfall is yet another testimony that no matter how powerful, rich  and influential a person might be, allegation of sexual misconduct is usually so weighty that it can easily bring the person down. It can also cause nearly every friend of the accused to abandon him as friends of Harvey Weinstein did, including Hillary Clinton. They were so afraid of the stigma that they stayed away, not attending even one trial proceedings nor had the courage to give character witness testimony in Harvey Weinstein's favor. A simple statement that 'the Harvey Weinstein they know is incapable of hurting women' would have sufficed and enough to have persuaded a different outcome or drastically reduced his sentence. 

But they were all a no show in court as they deserted him in his hour of greatest need for them, thus begging the question, what was the utility of having them as his friends and spending all the money which he spent funding their respective election campaigns. How the once powerful and wealthy Harvey Weinstein fell from grace to disgrace will someday make it into history books. It was with a helluva bang, thanks to the #MeToo loonies from hell. Life is indeed quite tragic.