Harvey Speaks: Shocking Emails Revealed | Ep 2

All right, guys, happy Tuesday and a question for you. It's been one that's on my mind all the time, perpetually, whether we're covering Justin Baldoni or whether we're diving into this new series.
What should be the consequence for false allegations? Right, because even if they're discovered, even if we get to the end of it and we realize, OK, yeah, Justin Baldoni was telling the truth, there is going to be some consequence to his life no matter what. just being, you know, driven through the press in this manner, having so many people form opinions

about you. going to be some consequence to his life no matter what? Just being, you know, driven through the

press in this manner, having so many people form opinions about you. Can you really just recover

from your life, even if at the end you're exonerated? I want to just leave you with that

notion and to, or question rather, and to have you guys write some answers when we get to comments

today. For now, let's jump right back into Harvey Speaks.
We'll definitely tell you guys what I am enjoying today. What I'm enjoying today is the headlines about this series that I've just started coming out of Hollywood.
And Gloria Allred, who, in my opinion, is just a shakedown artist. Like, it's incredible how many women she has represented who make an allegation and men lose absolutely everything.
And then I think her daughters, Lisa Bloom, like they've really turned this into a career of sorts. It's like a form of ambulance chasing.
You know, There's Benjamin Crump, and then the white version of Benjamin Crump is obviously Gloria Allred, and she's trying to be all big and bad in the press, acting like she's not nervous. Anyways, the Hollywood Reporter ran this article.
Candace Owens' latest crusade exonerating Harvey Weinstein. And what I love about this is they have to play sort of a journalist game of Twister because they've spent the last six months calling me anti-Semitic only to find out that I've been speaking to Harvey Weinstein and basically believe that he was wrongly convicted.
And so they try to like connect the dots here like, oh, this Jewish guy who gave a lot of money to the ADL and Candace has been working. Maybe it's because I just fight for truth no matter what.
And I don't really care what anybody looks like. And anyway, so as a part of this article, Gloria Allred, they went to her.
I declined to comment because it's not relevant to me. And I just see Gloria Allred for exactly what and who she is.
And I was reading this excerpt from that article. It reads, in statements to The Hollywood Reporter, attorneys for some of Weinstein's more than 80 accusers downplayed the value of the Owens-Weinstein effort, emphasizing that the producer has repeatedly opted not to testify under oath in his defense.
Gloria gives this quotation. I think that what really matters at this point is the evidence that will be admitted in his next criminal trial, said Gloria Allred.
My guess is that the only evidence that may be explosive would be his testimony. If Mr.
Weinstein decided to testify under oath and subjected himself to cross-examination by the prosecution, given that he has not taken the witness stand in his last two criminal trials in New York and California, I am doubtful that he will choose to testify this time. And then another one of the lawyers on this case, lawyer Dave Ring, basically says the exact same thing.
He's representing Jane Doe 1 in the Los Angeles trial. She actually went public in an entire spread for The Hollywood Reporter following his rape conviction.
We'll get to that later, obviously, because that's honestly the wildest case of them all. He agrees with Allred and says, quote, Mr.
Weinstein chose to not take the witness stand on his own behalf. He said, adding this collaboration is yet another ploy by Mr.
Weinstein's public relations machine to try and change public opinion about him and his sordid past.

Now, let me tell you what's super interesting about them saying that.

First and foremost, like I've showed you with the Justin Baldoni case, it relies on the public just being stupid, right?

They always assume that people don't understand how trials work or what's happening in the courtroom.

Obviously, the public was not welcomed into the courtroom in this particular trial. And Harvey Weinstein would have to be the dumbest person ever in the history of the world to take the stance, take the stand, not only to take a stand this time, but last time when the amount of corruption which was allowed into that courtroom, they basically were going to make him.
I'm going to actually let you guys know exactly what happened and why this why this decision got reversed by the appellate courts, because that's how corrupt the courtroom was. OK, it was essentially just a kangaroo court.
And so what these lawyers are doing is it's the same exact strategy when I showed you in the Blake Lively case when they subpoenaed like two and a half years of Justin Baldoni's records, knowing, of course, that he would fight that. because why would I give you two and a half years of every single text message I've ever sent ever

for two and a half years?

Like that scope doesn't even make sense,

but they were doing it as a PR move

because then when his legal team said,

no, of course you can't have access to that,

they didn't go to the public and go, oh, he must be hiding something. Well, Gloria, Allred, and Carr are doing the exact same thing.
Oh, he must be hiding something. No, the reality is you're nervous because you want him to take the stand because you don't feel confident in your case outside of the kangaroo court, which was allowed the first time.
They need him to essentially risk perjuring himself so that they can impeach his character. OK, like I said, they believe that the public is stupid.
So what happened in the appellate court, which you should understand, is they overturned his conviction, sending it back down. Essentially, four judges voted yes and three of the judges voted no on overturning it.
They had a majority got overturned. But I just want to just show you the absurdity of the New York court system.
One of the judges who dissented, her name is Judge Madeline Singus. She said she was dissenting because, quote, New York women deserve better than that.
So I dissent. Oh, OK.
I'm sorry. The collective of New York women deserve better.
So you dissent. Is that a reason to dissent from this? Can you actually spell out whether or not there was corruption? Indeed, there actually was enough in so much that the rest of the judges who were acting impartial and looked at this case realized, what are we allowing to happen in this courtroom? Why was any of this allowed? And from this article, which is shockingly extremely fair from The Hollywood Reporter, why the New York appeals court judges reversed Harvey Weinstein's conviction, this was written by a journalist named Kevin Dolak, and he said anybody who actually followed the trial wouldn't have been surprised by this reversal because essentially what happened in this courtroom has never been seen before.
And here's a quotation from that. It says, it reads, questioned that day were two key moves that Judge James Burke, that was the presiding judge over the Harvey Weinstein trial, made in 2020.
His decision to allow three women whose accusations against Weinstein were not in the purview of the case to testify as so-called Molyneux witnesses, which are trial witnesses are allowed to testify about criminal acts that the defendant has not been charged with committing to establish the Hollywood power broker has a predatory pattern. Burke also said that he would allow the prosecution to confront the defendant on the stand about past behavior that was not related to the cases of the two women accusing him of sexual assault.
So essentially, they just allowed anybody who wanted to say that something happened between him or her and Harvey Weinstein, and they could not prove those allegations whatsoever. They allowed them to just impeach his character.
So you imagine you're on the stand and you're saying, sir, you know, that you're being tried for rape. And the judge just allows this rule where anybody who wants to say anything about you can come and take the stand.
You can get like Johnny from third grade. And Johnny's like, yeah, no, he stole my pencils.
He stole my Pikachu pencils. Yeah.
And so he's a bad person. They literally allowed people to testify that he got into a fight with Bob Weinstein.
Like, what does that have to do with anything that's happening in his courtroom? And beyond that, they allowed women to just come in and to testify and to say he did this to me, he did that to me. And they did not have to prove any of their allegations.
They have to present any proof of those allegations. These were just, we are trying to impeach his character.
And we want the jury to hear allegation after allegation after allegation. And then the judge basically says that not only are you going to be forced to sit through all of this, all of these unproven allegations, but if Harvey Weinstein takes the stand, I'm going to allow the prosecution to question him about these these unproven allegations.
It was insane. OK, what this judge allowed in the courtroom was insane.
And so in reversing this decision, and I'm going to read you directly what the judges said, they said, we conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose, she wrote. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about those allegations, as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light.
I should mention that that overseeing Judge Burke, Judge Burke, he was denied reappointment since this case. He was so corrupt that the mayor's office denied to reappoint him to the bench due to this perceived corruption that was stemming from this trial.
He was asked to recuse himself because he was just allowing whatever to happen in this courtroom, which makes me wonder, was he accepting payments? Who was he working for? Why would he do this? Why not just allow a fair trial to take place? Why not allow cameras in there so people could see what was actually happening? Anyways, I wanted you to have that background as we get back into Mimi Haley and we take a look at everything that's happened. So when this gets overturned, Gloria Allred does what she does best.
She always brings people in front of the camera because she knows that you are not going to be able to follow her into the courtroom. So her job is to convince you via emotion.
This is how I read Gloria Allred's work. Have women cry, like we showed you yesterday, say this happened to me, tell you a traumatic story, get you to react.
And then she's probably like, when we get in the courtroom, you're not gonna follow and you're not gonna listen to how this story falls apart. And this story, yeah, a lot of things she didn't mention in that press conference.
Like, yeah, after your alleged sexual harassment and your alleged sexual assault, how did you correspond with Harvey Weinstein? So she already has come out with Mimi. As soon as this decision was overturned, she had Mimi sit down on her show, on her podcast, whatever it is, to read a statement about how overturning his conviction is so hurtful to her and how she's considering, she's not certain yet, she's considering testifying again, even though she's now learned that they're not going to allow Molyneux witnesses.
They're not going to allow all these people to just come in and say whatever. So now we're going to have to you're going to have to convince the jury based on the facts that are in front of them.
Here is part of her statement. I feel overturning Harvey Weinstein's conviction was a terrible decision that sends an extremely disheartening message to victims of sexual assault everywhere.

We made progress of historic proportion when justice was served, and myself and the other women who testified were truly seen and heard by the judge and jury in this very public case. the verdict undeniably had a ripple effect across the globe, which gave hope and courage to women and men everywhere, and set a precedent for similar cases.
Yesterday's devastating reversal of this conviction will no doubt also have its ripple effect. as we are witnessing with many events in the world at this time, it's a crucial moment in history to keep going and keep standing up for truth.
Okay, so you get it. She's supposed to just read this statement publicly, convince the public that something wrong happened here.
So you know what, let's just actually look at the facts here. I don't really care about female emotion.
I don't care about male emotion. I only care about the facts.
And so I decided to build out a timeline as I always do so that you guys can follow along regarding her allegations because this really is something. And now we have emails that we did not show you yesterday in our possession.
And I think you're going to be shocked. You're going to be absolutely shocked.
So let's actually start in the timeline and we we can show you this whole timeline here. We're going to take a look so that you guys can freeze this if you're watching this at home.
We start from 2006 from when she meets Harvey Weinstein. Her memory is weird.
We can throw the testimony up somewhere so that you guys can actually read through it. But for the sake of today, I want to start with July because this is when she alleges that this assault happened, the one where she said, no, no, no.
And so on July 9th, we have an email where Miriam sends an email to the Weinstein office asking for them to pay for her trip to Los Angeles. Okay.
Here is that email. You can read it.
It says, Dear Charles, presumably Charles Meech is an assistant of Harvey Weinstein. I don't know whether you're the right person to speak to, but Harvey had kindly offered to arrange for me to go to LA early this week.
I know I should have probably have called Friday, but needed to sort a few things out first. And so I would now like to confirm that if it's possible, I'd like to go tomorrow or Tuesday.

Don't mind which.

Please could you let me know if that's cool.

My numbers are blank cell and home.

Okay.

The day after this is when Harvey allegedly assaults her at his apartment.

This is the most important assault in everything because she says this is the one that is forcible. She did not want this.
And her memory is spotty about what happened during that time. But we know what happened the day after this.
OK, the day after this alleged assault, both her and Harvey somehow are in Los Angeles. Right.
So Harvey is attending the clerk's premiere. It's a movie that he is doing.
And we're able to confirm that, by the way, not because Harvey testified, but because I just went on to the Getty database and wanted to know if he made it to the premiere. And so this is just a screenshot of their database, and you can see that they have images if you want to purchase them.
The Clerks to Los Angeles premiere, there he is. They snapped these images on July 11th, 2006.
And then we learn from her testimony that she flies to Los Angeles on July 11th, the day after her assault. And when she's questioned about this by her side, she basically says, well, the trip was already booked.
So I was just going to go anyways. Plus, I was going to see my friends.
Plus, I didn't go to the clerks premiere, so it was totally fine. So something that's crucial is that she gave her calendar, if we want to call it a planner, a calendar to the district attorney as proof of what her whereabouts were all throughout 2006 because she kept a calendar just to kind of go, okay, I'm going to be here, I'm going to be there.
And she jotted down numbers and it became a crucial piece of evidence. But what the testimony shows is that she has this weird habit of crossing out the names that would show that she was in communication with Harvey's team.
From July 13th to July 15th, okay, she is in Los Angeles. We can bring up that timeline again so that they can visualize this.
Okay. And you can see on July 13th to July 15th, she crosses off Dan Guando's name on her calendar.
But his number is still there. So they're able to figure out that's Dan Guando.
Dan Guando is Harvey's assistant. Okay.
So just to be clear, she was assaulted on the 10th. Then she goes to L.A.
and then they notice that from the 13th through to the 15th, and I'm going to bring you into the testimony now, that she goes to the peninsula. Peninsula notoriously is where Harvey Weinstein stays every time he is in L.A., and she, for whatever reason, jots down his assistants' names.
And she cops to the fact that she went to the peninsula, but she can't remember why. So let's look at the top of that transcript.
This is page 1695. So this is Harvey Weinstein's lawyer asking her on the stand.
This is Damon. And he says, if we can go to the next page.
Now, this is July 13th through the 15th. Do you see that? She says, yes, yes.
Now, you said you didn't have any contact with Harvey Weinstein when you were in California. She replies, I said I didn't recall.
Well, do you remember what happened if you went to the peninsula when you were in California? It looks like I did, yes. And do you know Harvey Weinstein to have frequented the peninsula? Not particularly, no.
Do you know what was crossed off before the peninsula? No.

If you look up there, it has the name Dan. Right.
So he's showing her, just to be clear,

her own calendar. Right.
And it has a phone number, doesn't it? Yes. And that's Dan Guando's

phone number, isn't it? I don't know. I believe if you say so.
We can go to the next page here. And Dan Guando is Harvey Weinstein's assistant, isn't it? Yes.
So when you are in California on the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th, you are in contact with Harvey's assistant? Okay. She replies and just says, okay.
He says, well, I'm asking you. Potentially, I don't remember the conversations.
If it is in your calendar, you had to have written that. She replies, it doesn't say that there was a phone call.
It has a number. He says, and you would have gotten that number while you were in California, correct? I don't know.
I don't recall getting the number, so I don't know when I got it. We can at least agree it's on July 13th, 14th, or 15th, or at least on that page, correct? Page referring to the page in her calendar.
Not necessarily. That's just where I wrote it.
And you wrote it on the page for July 13th, 14th, or 15th, correct? And if we can turn to the next page, and who is Colin Callender? This is very important because she's now seeing an entry on her

calendar. She's written the name Colin Callender.
She answers, he is somebody who was working at HBO and you met with Colin Callender while you were in California to pitch something. no to ask for work i think to ask for work, I think, to ask for work.
Potentially, yes, that's on July the 17th, correct? It looks like it, yes. And then at the bottom, it says 10 o'clock p.m.
hospital letter baby. No, it says Cedars, Cedars-Sinai.
I apologize. But that is when your child, your friend's child was born, correct? Yeah,

the next day, actually. But yes.
So you were still in California at that time. Yes.
And that was still on the ticket that Mr. Weinstein had provided for you, correct? Yes.
And if we can go to the next date. So, ma'am, we discussed a little bit earlier how sometimes you draw things on your calendar to reflect your mood.
On the 20th, the 21st, and the 22nd, you drew some more hearts and some flowers, correct? Yes. And you went to the spa? Yes.
And what's Julie and Forge? Julie Bird's. Julie Bird's? That's probably a dinner with Julia Birds.
Okay, so the purpose of this is he is showing that it looks like she's had some communication with Harvey Weinstein because not only, and again, we can pull up this timeline that I made, not only does she allege that he horrifically, you know, sexually assaulted her on July 10th, but now we're learning that for whatever reason she went to the peninsula. She can't remember.
It looks like she had some correspondence with Dan, the assistant, but she can't remember. But what we can confirm is that she took a meeting with Colin Callender from HBO and she could have only gotten that contact from, well, Harvey Weinstein, because as you see, he is the former president of HBO.
OK, the former president of HBO. So it's looking like on Harvey's dime, and again, I'm just reading this common sense, on Harvey's dime she went to LA, she's drawing hearts in her calendar, it doesn't seem to be, she's testified earlier that she draws hearts and stuff to demonstrate her mood.
She doesn't seem to be in the mood, I think is what Damon is implying here, of someone who just survived a horrific assault. And she's meeting with people that Harvey presumably put her into touch with.
She's there for two weeks, and then she returns on July 24th to New York City from California. And then we see that she has an entry on her calendar to CHW.
Okay. This gets into the next assault, the one that we spoke about yesterday on July 26th, just two weeks later, she says that Harvey assaults her again at the Tribeca Grand Hotel.
And we should get into this testimony about this because it is crucial. So I'm going to pull this up on my laptop so I can read through it a little bit closer.
It starts on page 1700. It starts with, if we can go right, let's look at line number 16 here.
And he says, he says a question. Okay.
At some point, Mr. Weinstein gets in touch with you and you put that in your calendar for a meeting at 5 o'clock p.m.
in Tribeca Grand Hotel, correct? Yes. And then you schedule a dinner after that with your friend Christine.
Is that Christine Pressman? Correct. Christine Pressman was a friend of yours that lived in New York.
Correct. A friend of yours that you keep in touch with throughout the summer of 2006.
Correct. And the state asked you some questions about what was going through your mind when you got that invitation to go to Harvey Weinstein's hotel.
Do you remember those questions? Generally, yes. Okay, we are going to get into the specifics of that, but on the 26th of July, you had sex with Harvey Weinstein, correct? There was sex with Harvey Weinstein, yes.
And if we can go to the next day real quick, yes. And if we look at the calendar again, and I'm just going on what you told me, you said you draw hearts to sort of reflect your mood.
Is that reflective of your mood on July of the 27th, the 28th and the 29th? It may have been. Okay, so she's had sex with him.
She's admitted that this particular time, by the way, she's not saying that she said no or that she refused. And now he is showing, he's demonstrating that she drew hearts on her calendar in the days following this second sexual encounter.
She says, it may have been. Now we can go back to the 26th, please.
Now you said you went to the Tribeca Grand and Harvey called you, right? Yes. Correct.
I don't remember the phone call. Do you remember testifying in front of the grand jury? Do you remember him at least initiating this? I am sorry.
Do you remember him initiating a call or initiating a request for you to come to the Tribeca Grand? Certainly. It wasn't me.
Yes. And at that point, you had some options, right? As to whether to go or not.
Yes, I did. You told the jury that after Harvey Weinstein assaulted you on July the 10th, you had thought about some of those options, correct? To do with the assault, yes.

And the options that you discussed and thought about, one of them was to call the police,

correct? Correct. Okay, one of them was to out him publicly for what you say he did, correct?

The thought crossed my mind, yes. And it is your testimony that the reason that you didn't call the police was because you worked on Project Runway for a week and you were worried that

you would have a problem with your visa. It was a little bit more than a week.
Three weeks? Yes. So whatever it was, yes.
In fact, I was told that you could even get barred from entering the country even on suspicion that you wanted to stay or work in the United States. When did you hear that? I had been told that.
That's just what I had been told. Were you told that before July of 2006? Yes.
Okay, yet you came anyway. I was very aware.
Okay, so essentially he's just showing that she had an option here to just not go to Harvey's apartment. She alleges that she had all of these different, you know, she wasn't compelled essentially to go to the apartment on July 26th.
But she says that, remember, I told you yesterday that she was kind of going there because she wanted to face the magic, so to speak. And then she was totally shocked that she put herself in a predicament to have sex with him.
And then where it gets really crucial here is that he specifically says, and this is at the top of page 1704, he didn't force you to have sex at the Tribeca Grand, did he? And she said, I didn't physically resist, but I felt that, yeah. Did you remember testifying before the grand jury that it wasn't forced? Correct, because I didn't resist.
Okay, so you get a call to meet Harvey Weinstein from somebody and you arrive at the hotel and it's your testimony that there was a, you know, an assistant or somebody who was there. So he's setting this all up and you're recognizing that, okay, this woman went by her own accord.
She says that all of this happened and she's not really sure like why she went back, but she was completely devastated. So July 26th, she is saying like, even though she didn't resist, she also recognizes that it's still kind of a form of assault because it's not what she wanted to happen, which is why what becomes super crucial is what she did after the 26th.

OK. He points out that on July 27th, she has another entry, OK, another entry on her calendar, which she has once again removed from her calendar.
And she's stricken it from the records, to call Dan Guando about tickets. Okay? Dan Guando, again, being Harvey Weinstein's assistant.
So she has this unwanted encounter on July 26th, and yet on July 27th, according to her own calendar, she calls Dan Guando about tickets. Now, if you're wondering what tickets are we referring to, we are referring to tickets to London.
Once again, Harvey Weinstein is going to fund Mimi, Miriam Halei, to go on another trip, this time to London. So if we get back into the page of 1710.
He says on line 10, let's go to the next calendar. Can we blow that up, please? Did you go to dinner with Miss Pressman afterwards, meaning after your next little sexual non-wanted adventure? She doesn't recall.
Her answer is, I don't recall. Okay.
It's amazing when she gets amnesia and when she has clarity of mind, in my view. Question.
This is the very next insert on your calendar, Miss Halehi. Am I correct? Yes.
We already talked about the hearts being up there the next day. It says call Dan about ticks.
Did I read that correctly? Yes. You know, that's Dan Guando.
Yes. And the ticks you were talking about were tickets that Harvey Weinstein agreed to give you to fly to London on August 2nd, correct?

Perhaps. I don't remember the exact conversations or the yes, probably.

So you do agree that on August 2nd, you flew to London, correct?

I would have to be refreshed.

If we can shoot it over one JFK to London, correct?

Yes. And you know that Harvey Weinstein paid for that ticket, don't you? I know that now.
Yes. Well, you knew it then too, didn't you? I knew it then, but I didn't remember particularly until I was shown.
So did you talk to Mr. Weinstein at the Tribeca Grand about him flying you to London? I don't remember.
Days later, I don't remember that conversation. You didn't talk to him in LA, according to you, correct? I don't recall talking to him in LA.
And then when you get back, you talk to him at the Tribeca. I talked to him at the Tribeca Hotel.
You told this jury you remember the names that he called you, correct? Yes. And then on the next day, if we can go back to July 31st, it says, call Dan for ticks, right? Okay, yes.
The ticks we are referring to are the tickets that Mr. Weinstein bought you to go to London.
Can we agree with that? Yes. So this is very important, obviously, because this continually happens.
So she has an assault that took place on July 10th. And the next thing we know, she's on a plane and she's going to Los Angeles and she's seeing her friend there and she's meeting with executives that Harvey presumably put her in touch with.
I don't think that she herself would have had contact with a president, someone who holds a presidential title over at HBO. Then we have this second assault.
Again, these are the two that has put Harvey in prison for 20 years. And this time she's off and she is in London just a couple of days after this.
So what's happening here, guys? Is this really someone who is being victimized by Harvey Weinstein or are they in some sort of a relationship? I don't know. I'm leaving this to you.
Again, let's jump right back into the timeline, okay? She tries to scratch that August 31st memory. You can pull up a timeline, Skylar.
She tries to scratch that August 31st memory from the record. She sends the email on the next entry.
The next thing that happens is on September 8th, she sends an email, okay? So this is a couple of weeks after her next unwanted encounter that she didn't say no to, but it was unwanted. And on September 8th, she sends an email to Dan saying that she's back in London and that she's bummed that she missed Harvey while he was in London.
So I'm going to read that email. Hi, Dan, how are you?

So I'm back in London and totally bummed to have missed you guys.

I tried to change my flight till Friday, but I couldn't.

So if you're coming back anytime soon, please let me know.

Also, it would be great to know when Catwalk might start shooting.

If I have a spot, all the best, Miriam.

So again, that is Harvey's assistant, and she is asking again for another job. Catwalk is the British version of Project Runway, and she is saying this after having survived two unwanted encounters, one egregious assault from Harvey Weinstein.
Then she emails him again on October 23rd. The context of this email doesn't make sense to to me? It just, she, and this just says, was it something I said? We can pull that up.
The subject line says, what happened? And then it says, was it something I said? Again, the reason why all of these emails are going through his assistant is because that's the only way Harvey Weinstein emails. Everyone has to email through his assistant, and then his assistant sends him just one email with everybody's emails, and Harvey tells the assistant how to reply to it.
And so I'm guessing that the reason she wrote was it something I said, was that she didn't get a response perhaps, but I have no idea what the context is of that email, but I'm just letting you know. She reaches out again on October 23rd.
Maybe she's saying, I didn't get the position on Catwalk, or you guys never followed up with this, but I can't be sure about that. The next time that she reaches out to the man who has assaulted her twice is just a few weeks after that, on November 6th.
And this time she meets Weinstein at a hotel again. Unbelievably, on November 6th, she meets him at a Ritzy hotel called Claridge's, which is in London.
And she alleges that she went there to pitch a project to him. And I'll take you to the top of her testimony about this, OK? We're now at the top of page 1721 and he's asking if he can publish evidence right there on line nine.
Actually, we'll go a little bit above. Mr.
Taronis asks the judge, he said, and I ask that be received in evidence and published. Essentially, that's just him saying the judge, I'm going to show you something and I want this to be published as an exhibit, as evidence.
The court says, okay. It was received into evidence.
And then he resumes his questioning. His question is, and that's a meeting with Harvey Weinstein at four o'clock PM at Claridge, is correct? Correct.
And did you remember, do you remember that meeting? I remember meeting him in London and showing him a trash TV idea on my laptop. Would you take my word for it that you didn't send him the trash TV package until February of 2007? Now I'm going to pause and tell you why that exchange is significant.
She is alleging that she met him because she was showing him a TV project that she was working on. She was pitching him a TV idea.
And what he is saying is that we've got proof and we have got receipts. So that is actually not what you were doing there.
And that actually, that doesn't come until February. So she's trying to come up with a reason why she's at Claridge's.
She's trying to make it professional. And this lawyer's dropping some hints that I don't know what you were doing at Claridge's, but what you say you were doing is not what in fact you were doing.
So she may be recognizing, he says, would you take my word for it that you didn't send him the trash TV package until February of 2007, which is three months later? She replies and says, I was already thinking and writing about trash TV before that time. When you were thinking about it and writing, you wanted someone to produce it, correct? Not necessarily.
I may have just been showing him the idea to see what he thought about it. Like a friend would show a friend something? No, a person would show somebody who is very experienced in the field something.
And that's what you thought of Mr. Weinstein in November of 2006, that he was a person that you could share your work with because he was experienced in the field.
Correct. Right.
Yes. I felt he was a successful producer who knew a lot.
And that Harvey Weinstein, you signed that H.W., correct? Yes. And if we if we can go back to July 10th, remember, that's the first assault that she said.
She said, no, no, no. Are those similar? Not really.
Did you write them both? He's again referring to the calendar. Like I said, I don't know anyone else who would have written in my calendar, so I would say yes.
You talked about trash TV, correct? Yes. Trash TV was a concept that you had developed along with some friends, right? Yes.
Mainly yours? Yes. It was sort of your brainchild, something that you wanted to get off the ground.
Yes, it was an idea. It was an idea that you maybe wanted to turn into a show? Yes.
Yes, an online show? Yes. And you put together a treatment for that show, didn't you? Somewhat? Yes.
And at that time, in February of 2007, Michael White was still alive. Yes.
you had met producers on the tv show Shoot Me in England, right? Or Shoot Me Too. I was a producer on Shoot Me Too.
Yes. At this point, you are 29 years old, correct? And you knew a lot of people in the industry, didn't you? Yes.
And you knew other producers. Absolutely.
You knew other directors. Yes.
You knew actors. Yes.
You knew a lot of people. Yes.
And the person that you decide that you are going to pitch this to. Yes.
It's Harvey Weinstein. Yes.
And many others. I pitched it to many others.
I met with a lot of people about trash TV. So he's setting her up and he's just basically saying these and what I'm reading from this back and forth is you're testifying that this person assaulted you twice or assaulted you once where

you said no no no the second time you was unwanted you were fearful of this guy he was big

and now you're telling us that you're in London and while you're in London you have all of these

contacts because the person who was your father figure that guy that we spoke about last episode

Michael uh he set you up with a bunch of people you're producing a movie why would you move

I love you. person who was your father figure, that guy that we spoke about last episode, Michael, he set you up with a bunch of people.
You're producing a movie. Why would you move to message Harvey Weinstein at all? Okay, you're not under Harvey Weinstein's spell now.
You can't pretend that there's a reason that you need to reach out to him, and yet you do, twice. And he shows the emails, and there are emails of her pitching this concept to him in February of 2007.
Let's take a look at those emails, this trash TV show that she wanted to get off of the ground. And she writes, hey, Dan, haven't spoken to you in a while.
I hope you're well. This is February 9th, 2007.
Please, could you forward these attachments to Harvey? It's a letter and a sort of treatment for this project I want to do. I'm not forwarding someone else's stuff.
It's my own thing. So please, please, please, could you get him to read it? I'd really appreciate it.
I could have attached these little mood clip videos I made, but the files are too big to email. Anywho, it would be great if you could let me know if you've received this.

And then once again, the way that she ends the email doesn't seem like someone who's terrified of Harvey.

All the best, Miriam.

She wants that.

She's begging for that to be delivered to Harvey.

So what am I to think if I'm on the jury and I'm looking at this and I know people who have actually survived sexual like rape, sexual terrifying thing to live through. And I'm right.
I'm watching this person right after these encounters in 2006 and she's trying to get in touch with him. She's meeting him at hotels.
She's spotting on the details about why she's at these hotels or if she's at these hotels meeting him. but we're able to prove via calendar entries and emails that she is pursuing Harvey,

trying to get him to pick up one of her projects.

What are we to make of that?

I'm interested.

I'm interested to see what you guys are thinking about this

as you're reading through all of these emails

that took place following her unwanted encounters

with this monster.

I'm gonna take a pause

and I'm gonna quickly run you through

I'll see you next time. through all of these emails that took place following her unwanted encounters with this monster.
I'm gonna take a pause and I'm gonna quickly run you through what some other emails that she sent in that are incredible, in my view, absolutely incredible. First, we'll start by thanking one of our sponsors, Preborn.
Planned Parenthood is spending millions to target vulnerable women, convincing them that the abortion pill is quick and it's an easy solution. What Planned Parenthood doesn't tell them is that devastation follows.
There's pain, there's regret, there's a reality of having ended a life. That's why Preborn is stepping in through innovative technology.
Preborn is teaching abortion-determined women before they take the pill, before it's too late. In fact, to date, Preborn's network of clinics has rescued over 300,000 lives and have seen over 90,000 women come to Christ and does not stop there.
Preborn's network of clinics are with these moms every step of the way, offering counseling, maternity supplies, and the support that they need to choose life. But they cannot do it without us.
Just $28 provides an ultrasound to a woman in crisis. That is it.
Just $28 to help her see her baby and choose life instead. So to donate, just dial pound 250 and say the keyboard baby.
That's pound 250 baby. Or you can donate securely at preborn.com slash Candice.
Again, that's preborn.com slash Candice. Also reminding you guys of Pure Talk, because I know that so many people are tired of the high monthly payments just to have a cell phone.
Well, it's time to ditch your overpriced big wireless contract and visit my friends at Pure Talk. You do not need to pay $100 a month just to get a free phone pure talk which is my cell phone company says no to inflated prices with a qualifying plan you can choose an iphone 14 or a samsung galaxy for zero dollars and yes this is for premium service on america's most dependable 5g network so get your iphone 14 or your samsung galaxy for zero dollars with a qualifying plan by going to pure talk.com slash Owens.
You can make the switch in as little as 10 minutes. No hassle, no gimmicks, just honest to goodness wireless priced right.
Visit puretalk.com slash Owens to claim your new iPhone or Galaxy with a qualifying purchase from Pure Talk, America's wireless company. That's puretalk.com slash Owens for details.
Okay, so now we are in 2007. As I said, she has sent that email to Dan Guando once again, asking for Harvey to look at the treatment, to look at this treatment that she has put together for Trash TV.
And then 10 days after that, so that was February 9th, that email that I just read, 10 days after that, she sends him a long email to thank Harvey for his trash TV help. This is February 19th, 2007.
Let's read this long email or parts of this long email that she sends. Remember, none of this for whatever reason.
And she had a long press conference when she came out and cried with Gloria Allred. She didn't mention that this is what took place after her horrific assault that she survived.
She writes to you, Harvey, thank you so much for your kind offer to help and for John's call. It was very informative and he's very sweet and helpful.
I've mulled over all the things that he said and carefully examined the websites he suggested as as well as bought the book he thought I should read. Some of these sites I'd seen before and some were new, and it was great, as I feel I can now move forward with even more confidence.

There was nothing touch wood like my vision for trash out there yet. As I was telling John,

I had some unexpected developments with this in the past few days. As you know, I bought a few

trash TV websites, but wasn't able to get the one I really wanted that would solve my trademark issue, trash.tv. Well, I found out the person who owns it is actually producer director Philippe Calland, who incidentally produced my friend Adam's movie, Dead Girl.
Adam, who was at one point going to partner me in trash, but will now just help with the content. So it turns out Philippe has been wanting to do this for a while too, but has been busy on films to develop it.
Though he has people to deal with technical business programming and PR stuff, etc. Ready to launch it.
We're hopefully meeting in the next few weeks to discuss a collaboration. So fingers crossed.
In the meantime, I shall keep researching and working on it. And your support is very much appreciated.
Lots of love, Miriam. Lots of love.
Lots of love, guys. So lots of love that she was feeling towards Harvey for his help.
Obviously, he helped her somehow with this getting in touch with this John guy. And she's feeling once again, tons of love.
And I want to be clear, that woman who's writing Lots of Love puts Harvey in prison for 20 years. Okay, 20 years.
Alleging that she had obviously no control, even though we know that when she met him she was 20 or not when she met him but when they start beginning a relationship rather she was 29 years old at that cam film festival where she first approached him about getting a job and he offered her in ways that she doesn't remember but project runway a production assistant role. She was 29 years old, turning 30, okay? And for whatever reason, in 2007, it was lots of love.
Then we fast forward 10 years beyond that, next to Gloria Allred, and it's lots of tears. It's lots of tears, Mimi, okay? And I'm going to show you what happened in 2008, which we showed you yesterday to remind you back to the timeline.
So she actually a couple of more entries in 2007. I forgot about this.
She then reaches out to him in 2007 for tickets. She reaches out to his office for tickets to Cannes and Harvey's office scrambles to try to get her tickets last second.
They are able to get her tickets. By the time they tell her that they're able to get her tickets, it's too late.
So I can show you this email on May 25th, 2007 from somebody on Harvey's team named Leslie Hedlund. And she says, as an FYI, she doesn't think that she can use them because it was such short notice, but we did get them to her.
If we jump back into the transcript, page 1733, obviously, Damon questioned her about this. Like, why would you want to get tickets from this guy once again to Cannes? And he asks her, then in 2007, you were given some tickets by Mr.
Weinstein at the Cannes Film Festival for the movie Sicko. You remember that? I remember getting some tickets at the Cannes Film Festival.
I do not remember to what movie. It was from Harvey, right? Yes.
You actually reached out to Mr. Weinstein and his company to ask if you can get tickets for the movie, didn't you?

Possibly. I don't remember doing that, but it is very possible.

And that is because you knew Harvey Weinstein could get tickets at the Cannes Film Festival, right?

He probably had some movies at the Cannes Film Festival, yes.

You decided to reach out to him to ask for those tickets, yes. Did you see him at all in Cannes Film Festival? Yes.
You decided to reach out to him to ask for those tickets?

Yes. Did you see him at all in Cannes in 2007? I don't remember seeing him, no.
Do you remember leaving a message for him and his company telling him that you were in town? I remember leaving a message that I didn't make it to the movie. I do not remember the conversation before that.
Do you remember harvey if you were in London? I don't recall. I'm going to have somebody show you a document.
This is when he shows the email chain to help refresh her memory that these things that he is implying actually did happen, that she reached out to his office and she secured tickets and they were helping her to get tickets and that he replied by asking his team to see if she was in London. So once again, clearly we are seeing, we jump back into our timeline that her and Harvey Weinstein had a good relationship.
Okay. They had a friendly relationship, whatever it is you want to call it, a platonic father-like.
I don't know. I don't understand, but it's not giving me 20 years in prison.
When I read these emails, I'm not getting 20 years in prison. When I read these emails, I question the morality of someone like Gloria Allred.
How do you put your head on the pillow at night? Because for me, that's the most important thing. The most important thing is that whatever you do, even if it's a truth, if it's a hard truth, that you are able to go to bed and sleep soundly knowing that you are actually fighting for truth and that you are actually fighting for justice, not social justice, not the Me Too movement has taken off and there's an opportunity for women to bring allegations against men that are going to go unchecked because the emotional climate in America is demanding somebody's head in a platter and that person should be Harvey Weinstein.
Not social justice, but actual justice. I question Gloria Allred.
I question how she gets through reading these emails and says, you know what, I'm going to go forward with this. I'm going to go forward with this case.
And the reality, which we learned throughout this transcript, is that Gloria Allred, they actually represented her for free in the criminal matter because once somebody is charged criminally, you can then go after them civilly and make money. And he questions Mimi about those intentions.
Like, are you intending to sue him after? And she kind of dances around and won't say anything. And then of course, once the conviction happens, yeah, this is what this is.
Are we going to ask for money? Does this come down to money? Then of course we know, jumping back into that timeline. So Miriam writes him on May 27th, 2007, and she thanks him for the tickets and says that she could not use them.
Again, this is back at Cannes, so she's conversing with him all through 2007. And then on June 27th is when she sends that email about the Addams family being turned into a musical.
Harvey replies and tells her that she's a genius. And then that last email that we showed you yesterday about the kundalini yoga and looking for a job, many of you guys pointed out that that email looked very sexual because she says, my kitty needs feeding or my cat needs feeding.
You know, I'd really appreciate any lead. She's asking for a job and she ends it by by saying my cat needs feeding.
I don't know if that's meant to be a sexual connotation. I didn't even process that because my brain is so it's really not in the gutter at all.
But yeah, it's objectively weird that you would end it and an email by saying my cat needs feeding. And nowhere in the transcript can I find that she had a cat.
I have found that her roommate had a cat and a dog, but that was back in 2006. I don't know if when she was in 2009, probably living with somebody else, if she had a cat.
I don't know if Harvey knew her cat, but my cat needs feeding does sound like it could be sexual. I'm not sure.
And that's what we've got. That is what we've got regarding Mimi Halei, who is deciding whether or not she's going to take the stand without having a courtroom that is filled with people who are able to just launch allegations and essentially emotionally move the jury.
Now that that MOLANU standard has been removed, she doesn't know if she's going to take the stand. She's considering it.
Maybe she will do it on behalf of women. And I really hope she does.
I really hope she does because this stuff is crazy. As someone who is about to give birth to her third son, the idea of this happening, the idea of a man going to prison for 20 years and these emails being ignored by the jury because people are on the stand saying all sorts of wild things unchecked terrifies me.
It terrifies me. It should terrify you.
I want to address some of your comments here from episode one. One person wrote devil's advocate here.
If it takes domestic abuse victims at least seven times to leave their spouses, what makes you think that these women who knew Harvey from one call could destroy you would not go back and do what he wants? Entirely different circumstance, okay? Domestic abuse victims are people who tend to be in long-term relationships with someone, okay? So if you're married to your husband and you say you went back 10 times after he was beating you, I am much more sympathetic and understanding to that sort of a scenario because you go, they have all these considerations. I want to keep my family together.
You know, I'm addicted, whatever it is. You hear these circumstances.
You don't hear of a woman who in this circumstance admits that she pursued Harvey Weinstein at the Cannes Film Festival because her father figure mentor, Michael White, the producer, who was 40 years older than her when she met, who was taking care of her, right, or she became his personal assistant, has a stroke. And it looks to me like he, is she looking for her next person to take care of her I don't know but she then when she has that first icky icky feeling that she says she left the hotel at Cannes his hotel room after he asked her for a massage and she cried she could have been to everything right there there's no instant you could have been like that was creepy that didn't work for me that.
But she doesn't do that. She takes a job opportunity instead.
And it wasn't for her visa because at that point, she wasn't in America. She was living in London, okay? This wasn't a person who needed to be in America at all.
This was somebody who wanted a job. And she says that.
She says she wanted a job. So she's not going back because there's this pull or she's worried.
If she had left that hotel room and said, I'm actually all good. I actually don't want the job at Project Runway.
What was going to happen? He's going to waste his time when there's tons of other actresses, clearly, that are throwing themselves at him because he's a power broker. and so Jen Lin also to answer another comment here Jen Lin writes I'm a sexual abuse and rape survivor

I have never heard of anyone going out of their way to contact the abuser back. And I've been in a lot of support groups over the years.
Something is fishy. Another person echoes that sentiment.
This person writes, hi, Candice, as a victim of horrific R in Australia, I can attest the last thing you want is any contact with that individual. 18 months for a jury trial and even after the verdict, when the person is finally released and you live in a small city, I am hypervigilant.
If a man walks past wearing the same aftershave as an individual, I go into a full panic mode and lock myself in my house. Women that make this stuff up truly sicken me.
As a real survivor, it destroys a part of your soul, safety and peace that you never get back. I wondered in my mind if Harvey's team dismissed a lot of women who had said that they were abuse survivors because they didn't know in the climate of Me Too what they were going to get.
But just in looking at all the comments, I actually think they should have had abuse victims, real abuse victims on the stand because they would have looked at this evidence because there were so many of you commenting like this. I would never do this.
I avoid this person like the plague. So what separates an individual like the person who just commented from Australia and Mimi? What is the difference here? Why are survivors of rape, when they hear this timeline, why do they feel motivated to comment and say that this disgusts them, that this makes them angry? It's because we recognize that there is a difference, right? There is a difference between what I would describe, and again, I was not on the jury,

but what I would describe is a sugar daddy, sugar baby relationship

that didn't actually produce an A-list celebrity, who a person maybe then, as she got older, saw an opportunity and said, okay, you know what? I actually would like to renegotiate that. I'd like to renege everything I did in the past and to instead present myself as a victim.
There's a huge difference between that and people that are actual survivors, and conflating the two only hurts the women who are actually raped and sexually assaulted. But this put them away for 20 years, guys, 20 years.
I'm going to read some of your comments that are coming in live right after we thank American Financing, because I know that so many people work hard to support themselves and their families, but it may seem as though you are taking a step back every month instead of moving forward. When the bills are higher than what you bring in every month, you have to swipe that credit card to cover the difference, and the debt keeps adding up.
But if you own a home, my friends in American Financing can help you break free from that cycle. American Financing is saving people just like you an average of $800 a month.
You can think about what you could do with that extra $800 every month and not have to worry about those minimum monthly payments. And even better, it costs nothing to find out how much you can save.
All it takes is a quick call to American Financing. And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments.
So call American Financing today and start your journey towards being credit card debt-free. Call 800-795-1.
Again, that's 800-795-1210. Or you can visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Owens.
That's AmericanFinancing.net slash Owens. Okay, reading some of the comments that are coming in live.
This person just gave us a huge donation. Spit and Fire writes, finally, someone exposing these me too fakers.
Me too fooled the world too long. Believe all women is a joke, said a woman.
Believe the truth, period. Yeah.
Believing all men is crazy. Men lie.
I could go through things. Obviously, when we get through and we're looking at Ryan Reynolds and all this stuff, it's like, how could you just condemn an entire sex and just assume that one sex always is telling the truth? It's that that to me is actual insanity.
Brian Schwartz writes, I'm thinking Harvey was conspired against. Yeah, I think there's a reason that judge wasn't reappointed.
And I'm wondering who whose bidding he was doing because he was asked to recuse himself. I believe the mayor's office asked him to recuse himself and he refused and he just allowed anything to happen in that courtroom.
And the only reason you would allow that, that you would allow these people just impeach his character with all sorts of stories and then to say that not only that, but if you take the stand, you're gonna have to defend yourself against these unproven allegations is because you know that the actual facts of the case are not strong enough to convict him. Otherwise it it's not necessary.
You don't need any extra people. You just go, as soon as you see this evidence, everyone's gonna recognize this man is a hardcore rapist, that he engages in sexual assault, and he should be put into prison.
The judge didn't have that confidence. Gloria Allred, in my view, did not have that confidence.
And they still don't have that confidence, in my view, because they're trying to publicly pressure him to do the dumbest thing possible, which would be to get on the stand so that they can start asking him a bunch of questions. No, you have the evidence.
Try it again. Try it again.
With more people now aware of what's happening with this case also. Calling it a PR stunt.
a PR stunt to read the emails. I'm not being paid by Harvey's team.
Harvey's team isn't asking me to do anything. Harvey didn't even want me to do this because Harvey's still on the left.
Think about that. I had to essentially try out to even be able to present this, to be able to speak about the things I had learned because Harvey just, you know, is not a right-leaning individual and still, for whatever reason, has faith in the very media that took him down, the very media that refused to show this evidence, to show these emails.
How is that PR? How is it PR to read the emails, to pull the Brian Friedman and to say, hey, everybody, here's a website. You can now, and this is, by the way, what his team should do.
Get in touch with Brian Friedman, put up lawsuitinfo.com, create a timeline like I have created, drop all of the evidence and allow the world to see the truth, not to read perfectly curated statements from lawyers who are willing to lie on behalf of their clients because there was a paycheck at the end of those lies. Does that just make sense? Key writes, I joined your website and also pre-ordered your book.
You have opened my eyes on so many things. Shot in the Dark is amazing and has helped me navigate with being a first-time mama.
Much love, Candice. Keep being a badass.
Yeah, our episode that we released for free on the MMR vaccine was going so viral on Instagram yesterday regarding my Shot in the Dark series on our website that Instagram moved to essentially put a warning on it so nobody could share it, which is crazy because we didn't share the episode on Instagram. It was just a link.
So they blocked the link from being shared by saying fact checkers have reviewed this and had decided that this can't be shared because it correlates autism to MMR. That is absolutely not what happens in that episode.
I just showed you guys actual articles. I showed you actual proof that Japan said no to this vaccine, MMR, back in 1993, the combination vaccine that is.
And giving parents information, for whatever reason, makes Big Pharma very angry. And so I'm very proud of that series.
And I'm very happy that so many parents were able to access it yesterday. And you can go to canisowens.com.
I believe it's required viewing to watch that series if you become a parent, because you just have to know the tricks that the doctors play and the gaslighting that takes place. Mark Adams writes, I've not been so excited to be waiting on each new episode since Lost.
Candace is doing amazing things and I'm loving it from a hashtag London boy. Thank you so much.
Yeah, this has been important to me. Like I said, I was number one when it came to saying that something was rotten about the Me Too movement.
And I hope that in showing you these things, everybody can appreciate like this. This is when the genie got out of the bottle, right?

This was he was ground zero of the Me Too movement.

And it's important that we go back and take a look at Harvey Weinstein, examine him.

Like I said, no doubt he abused his power.

I said that to him on the phone.

There's no question in my mind that you abuse your power.

And I would hate to have been your wife.

And I would never say Harvey Weinstein is a moral man because he wouldn't be in this predicament if he had just been faithful to his wife. Consider that.
Consider that, Chris, as being faithful to your wife. But also, I believe that he was wrongly convicted.
And it doesn't matter if you agree with somebody in the way that they live their life or if you agree with their morality. We must have a true due process that examines facts and logic and evidence outside of emotion and irrationality and tears.
Anybody can cry in a stand. I can cry in a stand today.
I'm pregnant enough. I can cry about anything.
It doesn't give me the right to put somebody in prison for 20 years. It doesn't mean just believe her.
Just believe her. She's crying.
Why else would she be crying? I don't know. Maybe she's crying because she's being exposed as not being completely honest.
There's tons of reasons people cry. I don't know.
Anyways, you guys, I want to remind you, this is going to be a lot of content today because tonight Trump is going to address Congress. He's going to address joint Congress session.
And so we will be here live on YouTube to watch that. You can just watch with me if you're planning on watching that joint address.
A lot going on. If you're super into politics, obviously, you know us stopping the funding on Ukraine.
Who knows who's not going to attend? It seems like people are constantly always protesting in Congress as opposed to just doing their job left and right and sitting down and listening to whoever the president is respectfully. But we're going to see what's going to happen tonight.
We're going to see what Trump has to say. Again, this is not a state of the union, but it is a joint address.
So I hope that you guys will come back and watch it with me. It will be at nine o'clock p.m.
Eastern. I will be doing my best to stay awake.

Like I might fall asleep live because I cannot stay up late,

but I'm going to do it for you guys.

So we will see you guys later tonight.

The link is already on our YouTube live. Thank you.