New Reports From Harvey Weinstein's Trial Have People Questioning #MeToo All Over Again

Harvey Weinstein, once a dominant force in Hollywood and Democrat Mega-Donor, became the face of the #MeToo movement after more than 100 women accused him of sexual misconduct. The allegations, ranging from harassment to rape, detailed a pattern of abuse in which Weinstein allegedly used his industry power to coerce women into sexual encounters, often in exchange for career opportunities.

In 2020, Weinstein was convicted in New York of first-degree criminal sexual act against former production assistant Mimi Haleyi and third-degree rape of aspiring actress Jessica Mann. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Two years later, he was convicted in Los Angeles of forcible rape and sexual assault against an Italian model in 2013, adding 16 more years to his sentence.

However, in April 2024, Weinstein’s New York conviction was overturned, with the court citing procedural errors in the trial. A retrial is set for April 2025, but his Los Angeles conviction still stands, keeping him behind bars.

As Weinstein prepares for his next legal battle, his case remains one of the most defining moments of the #MeToo movement, raising ongoing debates about power, justice, and due process in the post-Me Too era. In the first episode of her "Harvey Speaks" series, Candace Owens discusses the culture of ambition in Hollywood, the credibility of Weinstein’s accusers, and the key details that shaped his trial.

A Case of Overwhelming Accusations

Weinstein’s downfall began with an explosion of allegations from numerous women, ranging from harassment to sexual assault and rape. The accusations painted a disturbing picture of a man who wielded his power in the entertainment industry to exploit aspiring actresses. Owens highlights the striking similarities in many of the women’s accounts—stories that involved showers, exposure, and coercion.

However, as Owens points out, the long list of accusers dwindled significantly by the time Weinstein faced trial. Many women who initially came forward with allegations were either dismissed or found to have fabricated their claims. Owens describes the sorting process in court, where some accusers were deemed outright liars, while others had at least engaged in some form of relationship with Weinstein.

Medical Evidence: A Crucial Twist in Weinstein’s Defense

One of the more shocking revelations in Weinstein’s trial was a medical condition that became central to his defense. Weinstein underwent surgery in 1999 for Fournier’s gangrene, a rare and severe infection that led to the removal of part of his scrotum. Prosecutors highlighted this detail, arguing that his physical condition left noticeable scarring and abnormalities that should have been recognizable to his accusers.

Owens emphasizes that this detail became a pivotal factor in discrediting certain testimonies. Some women who claimed intimate encounters with Weinstein described his anatomy incorrectly, leading defense attorneys to challenge their credibility. This unexpected medical twist provided Weinstein’s legal team with a critical argument that helped narrow down the allegations against him.

The Case of Mimi Haleyi

Ultimately, Weinstein’s New York conviction hinged primarily on the testimony of two women, one of whom was production assistant Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi. Sentenced in 2020 to 23 years in prison, Weinstein received 20 of those years based on Haleyi’s accusation of first-degree sexual assault.

Owens notes that Haleyo’s introduction to the public came through an emotional press conference in 2017, standing alongside prominent women's rights attorney Gloria Allred. Owens criticizes such press conferences, arguing that they are often persuasive in the court of public opinion but not necessarily reflective of courtroom testimony. She suggests that public narratives can shift when scrutinized under legal cross-examination.

By the time Haleyi took the stand in 2020, Owens claims that certain aspects of her original account had been altered. Some details changed between her grand jury testimony and her court appearance. For example, she reportedly added new claims, including allegations that Weinstein called her derogatory names, which she had not mentioned in earlier statements to prosecutors., which Owens suggests raises questions about the consistency of her allegations. Despite this, Haleyi’s testimony remained central to Weinstein’s conviction.

Owens then delves further into the details of Mimi Haleyi’s relationship with Weinstein, providing a timeline of events leading up to her allegations. Before meeting Weinstein, Haleyi had spent years working closely with another older Hollywood producer, Michael White, whom she described as a "father figure." Owens notes that Haleyi lived an unconventional life in elite circles, rubbing shoulders with high-profile figures like Kate Moss, Princess Diana, and the Rolling Stones while working for White.

After White suffered a stroke and could no longer provide career support, Haleyi reportedly sought out Weinstein at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006. At the time, she was nearly 30 years old, a point Owens emphasizes to contrast the portrayal of young, vulnerable victims in Hollywood.

From Hollywood Parties to Alleged Assaults

According to Haleyi’s testimony, she first met Weinstein in Cannes, where an uncomfortable encounter occurred at his hotel. Despite feeling humiliated by his request for a massage, she later accepted a job as a production assistant on Project Runway, a show produced by Weinstein’s company. Owens notes inconsistencies in Haley’s recollection of how she secured the job, with some details appearing vague or contradictory.

Despite the alleged discomfort, Haley continued interacting with Weinstein. She met him for drinks, described one meeting as "pleasant," and later accepted his invitation to fly to Los Angeles for a film premiere. However, the turning point in her accusations came in July 2006, when she claimed Weinstein forcibly performed a sexual act on her in his Soho apartment.

Owens draws attention to a significant point raised during Weinstein’s trial: despite the alleged violent assault, Haley continued to engage with Weinstein, even traveling to Los Angeles on his dime just weeks later. Upon her return to New York, she met him again at the Tribeca Grand Hotel, where she claimed another assault occurred. Owens questions how, after experiencing a traumatic event, Haley willingly returned to Weinstein’s presence multiple times.

Cross-Examination Raises More Questions

During cross-examination, Weinstein’s defense attorneys challenged Haleyi’s narrative, highlighting inconsistencies in her timeline and testimony. She admitted to not physically resisting Weinstein and acknowledged that she previously testified under oath that the sex was not forced. Additionally, some inflammatory accusations—such as Weinstein allegedly calling her derogatory names—were absent from her initial interviews but surfaced later in court.

Owens also points to a surprising twist: two years after the alleged assaults, Haleyi emailed Weinstein. The email, sent in June 2008, was friendly in tone, referencing an old conversation and signing off with "lots of love." This raised further questions about the nature of their relationship and whether her later allegations aligned with her past actions.

The "Theater Kid" Archetype

Owens also introduces the concept of the "theater kid" archetype—aspiring actors who dedicate their lives to achieving fame in Hollywood. She argues that for many, the hunger for stardom never fades, even as they grow older and face the reality that their big break may never come. Owens poses a question: what happens when these dreams don’t materialize? She suggests that some women, once convinced they were destined for success, may become disillusioned or even resentful of the industry that failed to reward them. This, she argues, provides context for some of Weinstein’s accusers, raising the possibility that the #MeToo movement became a way for certain individuals to reconcile career disappointments by reframing past encounters as coercion or abuse.

Hollywood's Reckoning

Owens paints a picture of an industry where power dynamics played a significant role in both the allegations and the defense strategies. She acknowledges that Weinstein was an influential figure who had the ability to make or break careers. However, she points out there was also potential for opportunism in the wake of a powerful man’s downfall.

While some see his downfall as a moment of justice, others question whether due process was fully upheld. With public opinion deeply divided, the Harvey Speaks series seeks to unravel the intricate details behind one of the most infamous trials in Hollywood’s history. Owens hints at more revelations to come, suggesting that the appeal process may bring further scrutiny to the initial court proceedings and the broader implications of the #MeToo movement.