Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
After a brief discussion of the media and the markets and convenient coronavirus excuses, we dive into Wednesday’s Three Martini Lunch. Join Jim and Greg as they are gratified to see convicted rapist and former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison. They also discuss what this episode says about our justice system. They also have different reactions to South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn suggesting Joe Biden’s big wins on Tuesday suggest the Democratic National Committee should “shut this primary down” and “cancel the rest of these debates.” And they get a kick out of the writer for “The Atlantic” who feels betrayed because her husband voted for Bernie Sanders for strategic reasons in the California primary while she stuck with Elizabeth Warren.
Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Published in: Elections, Entertainment, Healthcare, History, Humor, Journalism, Law, Marriage, Podcasts, Politics, Sports
Oh please.
Can you arrange for me to live 40 or 50 years as a billionaire movie mogul, and then spend my last 5 years in prison getting free healthcare etc?
Doesn’t sound like a bad deal.
At least so we’re told, people have “sold their soul to the devil” for a lot less.
And who knows, maybe that’s exactly what Weinstein did!
Remember, Jim Geraghty is always wrong.
The Femsplainers did a deep dive on Harvey Weinstein’s New York convictions, and made a strong casr that, based on the flimsy evidence actually presented in court, he should have been acquitted.
Of course, he wasn’t convicted on the basis of the evidence presented, but rather in the court of the media.
Well yes, the whole “justice was done” premise of today’s “show” is a different issue in terms of the facts. But I was only going after the idea that “justice is served” after the guy gets to be a billionaire studio mogul for decades, with – to borrow an expression – hot and cold running actresses at his beck and call (and I’m not referring to any who were actually assaulted) doesn’t seem like a lot of “justice” to me. A bit like Osama Bin Laden getting to live for almost 20 years before HIS “justice” finally arrives.
But that kinda sounds like I think Weinstein was actually justifiably convicted too, which I don’t. But my point was, how much “justice” is there, really, if the guilty party gets to live “like a king” (more or less) for decades and then is finally caught up with when his life is close to over anyway? Taking satisfaction that “justice was done” in a situation like that, strikes me as a bit odd, if not actually bizarre.
In a very real way, justice delayed IS justice denied, and even if Weinstein really had been PROPERLY convicted on REAL evidence, it took so long, and he lived so well in the meantime, that it seems a bit… pyrrhic?… that’s probably not the best word… maybe hollow?… to say the least. Like saying “justice was served” by executing a death-row inmate after 30 years of appeals, the day before he may have died of a heart attack anyway.
Put another way, the “justice was done” claim and so “he didn’t get away with it” seems weak when he DID get away with it for decades, and now that he’s in failing health and might not live another 5 years, he’s going to prison. Big whoop.
And of course, the appeals have not even begun.
In a case of actual guilt, situations like that were addressed in perhaps the best story I’ve ever seen/heard/etc in any form, in an episode of The Outer Limits:
And it went a long way toward showing me how good Michelle Forbes was.