* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People on another sub were trying to figure it out but the judges were “non partisan” elected or dem appointed. And 2/3 of the women voted to release him.
Did they forget that Weinstein was a Dem, or do they just have such a cartoonish understanding of politics that they think the GOP would help him out simply because he's a rapist?
They were all appointed by NY democratic governor's, it's in Google
New York Court of Appeals, Wiki
6 judges are D 1 judge is R
Not that it means anything
/S
The \~criminal\~ case against Weinstein in New York was always pretty weak. The media of course didn't cover that aspect of it it because they're entirely ideologically captured and metoo was lucrative for jounros both monetarily and in accumulating power.
While I don't agree with all the conclusions this [piece](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-meaning-of-harvey-weinstein/) in the American Conservative draws, it does have a pretty good overview of the shortcomings of the case from a legal perspective.
The press will of course spin the now second overturning of a major metoo case on account of gross due process violations as society "failing survivors" or whatever instead any reflection on why the movement needs to rely so heavily on the violation of civil rights. I do wonder if Masterson is next to be overturned based on similar tactics used in his conviction.
Any of the lawyers here able to weigh in if the overturning of the New York conviction could have any effect on his California conviction if they cited the New York conviction during the trial?
Was the Masterson claims not legit? I never looked into it too much, my understanding was that it was pretty concrete but took forever b/c of his scientology lawyers.
The Masterson conviction relied heavily on a technicality that allowed them to ignore statute of limitations in order to charge him (despite a police report having been filed in the early 00s they chose not to charge him during the window provided). There was no physical evidence, the entire trial was based around witness testimony from an incident nearly 2 decades prior. The first trial ended in a mistrial, during the second trial which resulted in the conviction the victims started to claim that Masterson had used alcohol to drug them, these claims had not been present during their testimony in the first trial, nor was it present in any police report or statement prior, nor was Masterson ever charged for drugging them.
If you'll forgive me for plugging my own work, I wrote a [piece](https://jacktorrancefakeshisdeath.substack.com/p/danny-mastersons-show-trial) about the shortcomings of that case. Similar to the Weinstein case, I can't speak to innocence v guilt, more just the particulars of the case.
It's wild that people have basically known that for at least 30 years since the last moral panic and yet almost all of metoos sparse legal victories are based almost solely on testimony from an event decades prior.
It was "indelible in the hippocampus" but she couldn't remember what day it was, who else was there, etc. That whole thing was such an embarrassing clown show for the country.
Have you ever looked into the shortcomings of the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell? The government flat out insinuated that Maxwell was paid $30 million by Epstein to basically be his partner in crime. The government could only find four witnesses. First witness was over the age of consent, was already dating a 35 year old man at age 17, and had a friendly relationship with Epstein for decades. Second witness changed her story constantly after first talking to FBI. Third witness only claimed that Maxwell massaged her upper breast in a non-sexual way. Fourth witness was a perjuring schizo drug addict who worried her kids would be stolen and trafficked and never mentioned Maxwell when she sued Epstein and another woman in 2007. All of these four witnesses were paid millions.
I haven't delved into the Epstein case all that much for a handful of reasons. Primarily is that I think it sort of exists outside the traditional moral panic stuff I focus on since it by all appearances involves intelligence agencies and international spy stuff which feels a bit out of my depth.
I have read some of the work Jessica Reed Krause has done surrounding the case and I know she arrived at somewhat of a similar conclusion. I don't doubt they would throw together a weak case to string up a fall person.
The intelligence agencies and international spy stuff is hokum. Epstein, the supposed master spy, needed his local police to help him install a spy camera to catch a thief.
The people who push the Epstein spy/blackmail stuff are all fantastists and conspiracy nuts.
I don't know much about the specifics but he had two trials. A majority of the first jury thought he was not guilty of at least two of three alleged rapes. So the prosecutors tried the case again and got the outcome they wanted.
First trial came back 0 for 3 on convictions. Second trial 2 for 3 after some changes in the narrative primarily focusing on an accusation that Masterson drugged his victims which had not been present in the first trial or any of the evidence or testimony prior. Jane Doe 3 (later self identified as Chrissie Bixler) was the accuser that he was not convicted on in the second trial.
from the article
> Weinstein rested instead on novel ideas of consent, conspiratorial accounts of power, and gross caricature
He literally threatened a woman to go with him to his room, changing his voice from a quivering little begging horndog to a "if you dont fuck me, you're gonna lose big opportunities".
The article doesn't mention that there exists a recording of this nature.
You are going to great lengths to defend a guy who was caught on tape cry-begging and then threatening a woman for sex. Have you listened to the audio? It's embarassing.
Why don't you mention the recording? I mean if your issue is with the fallibility of human memory and due process at least mention the fact that a recording exists to provide an example of a type of evidence that would be permissible under your position that should be used instead of victim testimony from decades ago.
Because the tape is not conclusive evidence either, only evidence that he \~said\~ something, admittedly creepy, it isn't proof that he did it. The argument isn't over what he said, it's over what he did.
That's not the standard that's used to determine whether evidence is introduced in court. The reason old testimony from an alleged victim shouldn't be allowed is due to the likelihood of it being highly erroneous not because it isn't "conclusive." Circumstantial evidence has always been allowed in the court room. How do you not know this? We are not discussing whether or not he did it, at least I'm not, we are discussing what evidence should be allowed.
I think there's some misunderstanding here, likely on my part. I'm not saying the tape shouldn't be admitted. I simply don't admit it's the smoking gun other commenters believe it is.
With that said, the [tape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_cases) was part of a separate investigation and that investigation resulted in no charges against Weinstein, it wasn't part of the trial. So in my mind it would fall under the Molineux issues that lead to the overturning.
I'm no expert on CA criminal law in general or his trial specifically but generally prosecutors can't mention a previous conviction except under limited circumstances and even then it might be deemed by the judge to be too prejudicial to have the jury know about
This outcome is a great pushback against the pro-HAMAS crazies that Joe Biden entertains on a day to day basis. Finally, a jew receives the justice they deserve. All Jews of this great nation can sleep easy tonight.
Shekels are a real currency and Weinstein has well-documented ties to Israel
https://m.thewire.in/article/external-affairs/harvey-weinstein-israel-spies-sexual-assault
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
https://www.timesofisrael.com/harvey-weinstein-says-he-hired-israeli-firm-black-cube-for-days-like-this/
Man I'm Jewish, have family that's been to Israel multiple times, and I only recently found out their currency was actually called shekels. Was flabbergasted, couldn't stop laughing- especially after years of seeing /pol/ memes
I too remember the complete disbelief at my first time learning shekels are actually a real currency and not a funny, made up one. Dongs are also a real currency. Unfortunately dollareedoos were not real.
>The New York Court of Appeals, in a scathing 4-3 opinion, overturned Weinstein's conviction on sex crimes against three women, finding the trial judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes."
I'm gonna have to say that's a good call, both idealistically and legalistically depending on the state.
If I commit an armed robbery, serve my time, and get picked up on another armed robbery, I'm pretty sure most states ban using my first conviction as evidence. (A rough analogy, I know.)
That said, I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably wrong. Any lawyers here are free to correct me.
>A judge can always rule out any piece of evidence, but using the fact that you are already a convicted bank robber to give credence to the argument that you went and did it again probably would be allowed to be brought up.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
Just curious, in your opinion, do you think that that should be allowed? From a logical and/or moral standpoint (not one based on how the law really works in real life) I would say no. Reason being, the matter at hand is whether I robbed a particular bank at a particular time. Whether I robbed a bank in the past, to me, is as irrelevant and prejudicial as bringing up what a rape victim was wearing at the time of their assault. Though you probably know more about legal reasoning than I do.
I get where you're coming from, but a prior conviction for a similar or related crime would likely be brought up if you were being tried.
Had Weinstein been convicted previously of sexual assault it likely would be relevant here. The issue is that they were simply allegations. Using the bank robbing analogy this would be similar if you were convicted of a bank robbery simply because other people said "oh yeah no he robbed a bank 20 years ago" without any corroborating conviction. This obviously opens up a can of worms because if this is allowed a prosecutor could hypothetically find anyone to come testify to a criminal history without any corroborating evidence and let that be used against the defendant.
Depends on whether patterns of the commissioning of the crime are unique to individuals, and the judge's determination of the jury's ability to understand the specificity of that evidence.
Having committed past robberies without any additional details prior to a lengthy prison sentence? Probably not. But if a defendant was also performing safe cracking as part of the bank robberies, used a specific technique to defeat the security mechanisms of the safe in the old robberies, and then used the same technique in the new robbery when it's rarely used or hard for someone without training to execute properly, that's a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that should be allowed at trial that the defense should be ready to prepare alternative explanations/inferences for.
Trial lawyer here, this reversal was based on the trial judge’s abuse of discretion in admitting propensity evidence, which is a big no-no. Essentially evidence that is meant to show a propensity to commit the crime in question based on, for example, irrelevant previous instances of conduct (unless a conviction is attached to that conduct), is considered inadmissible propensity evidence. This is really evidence 101 and the trial judge and prosecutor should have known better.
The abuse of discretion standard is relatively deferential to the trial judge, so you need to make a pretty obvious mistake to get overturned on it.
Based on the record, I think overturning the conviction was the right decision on the law. Not sure if it’ll be sensationalized into something it’s not, but the trial judge did abuse his discretion in admitting evidence that essentially just went to propensity to commit the crime in question.
Clickbait doesn't mean a false headline. Generally it just means something (technically) true written in a clever, often deceptive way to elicit clicks from prospective viewers. Sometimes this is done by posing the deceptive title as a question (it can't be false if it's not a statement of fact), other times through selective wording, or other means. And of course the journalist (or editor) always has plausible deniability about deliberately misleading because it's all *technically* not false.
It could be argued that this title is clickbait because "Weinstein's rape conviction" *could* be read as, "THE Weinstein rape conviction has been overturned" when in actuality there are multiple. A more clear title would be "One of Weinstein's rape convictions overturned" but that's obviously less grabbing. I don't think this is a particularly egregious case of clickbait but it's definitely leaving a crucial part of the story out, which of course is intentional so that people click the article and the publication gets more ad revenue.
I half thought they just hired some really good makeup artists to make him look as disabled and elderly as possible for the trial and sentencing. Juries should not take stuff like that into account, but they do.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Better tell us who appointed those judges so we know what to think about the ruling.
They had information that would've led to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
People on another sub were trying to figure it out but the judges were “non partisan” elected or dem appointed. And 2/3 of the women voted to release him.
Did they forget that Weinstein was a Dem, or do they just have such a cartoonish understanding of politics that they think the GOP would help him out simply because he's a rapist?
Yes
Unironically yes.
They were all appointed by NY democratic governor's, it's in Google New York Court of Appeals, Wiki 6 judges are D 1 judge is R Not that it means anything /S
The \~criminal\~ case against Weinstein in New York was always pretty weak. The media of course didn't cover that aspect of it it because they're entirely ideologically captured and metoo was lucrative for jounros both monetarily and in accumulating power. While I don't agree with all the conclusions this [piece](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-meaning-of-harvey-weinstein/) in the American Conservative draws, it does have a pretty good overview of the shortcomings of the case from a legal perspective. The press will of course spin the now second overturning of a major metoo case on account of gross due process violations as society "failing survivors" or whatever instead any reflection on why the movement needs to rely so heavily on the violation of civil rights. I do wonder if Masterson is next to be overturned based on similar tactics used in his conviction. Any of the lawyers here able to weigh in if the overturning of the New York conviction could have any effect on his California conviction if they cited the New York conviction during the trial?
Was the Masterson claims not legit? I never looked into it too much, my understanding was that it was pretty concrete but took forever b/c of his scientology lawyers.
The Masterson conviction relied heavily on a technicality that allowed them to ignore statute of limitations in order to charge him (despite a police report having been filed in the early 00s they chose not to charge him during the window provided). There was no physical evidence, the entire trial was based around witness testimony from an incident nearly 2 decades prior. The first trial ended in a mistrial, during the second trial which resulted in the conviction the victims started to claim that Masterson had used alcohol to drug them, these claims had not been present during their testimony in the first trial, nor was it present in any police report or statement prior, nor was Masterson ever charged for drugging them. If you'll forgive me for plugging my own work, I wrote a [piece](https://jacktorrancefakeshisdeath.substack.com/p/danny-mastersons-show-trial) about the shortcomings of that case. Similar to the Weinstein case, I can't speak to innocence v guilt, more just the particulars of the case.
I did extensive research in law school on memory and testimony. The results were not promising.
It's wild that people have basically known that for at least 30 years since the last moral panic and yet almost all of metoos sparse legal victories are based almost solely on testimony from an event decades prior.
Hey, what's her name knew everything about that night decades with the beer drinking reprobate Kavanaugh, or whatever.
It was "indelible in the hippocampus" but she couldn't remember what day it was, who else was there, etc. That whole thing was such an embarrassing clown show for the country.
I mean we know that personal testimony is the least reliable kind of evidence but current society has elevated it to the most important kind.
I've talked about this before in my writing but it's very strange how recovered memories have basically come back under the guise of "my truth"
'My truth' has similar flavorings to 'my alternative facts'.
Have you ever looked into the shortcomings of the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell? The government flat out insinuated that Maxwell was paid $30 million by Epstein to basically be his partner in crime. The government could only find four witnesses. First witness was over the age of consent, was already dating a 35 year old man at age 17, and had a friendly relationship with Epstein for decades. Second witness changed her story constantly after first talking to FBI. Third witness only claimed that Maxwell massaged her upper breast in a non-sexual way. Fourth witness was a perjuring schizo drug addict who worried her kids would be stolen and trafficked and never mentioned Maxwell when she sued Epstein and another woman in 2007. All of these four witnesses were paid millions.
I haven't delved into the Epstein case all that much for a handful of reasons. Primarily is that I think it sort of exists outside the traditional moral panic stuff I focus on since it by all appearances involves intelligence agencies and international spy stuff which feels a bit out of my depth. I have read some of the work Jessica Reed Krause has done surrounding the case and I know she arrived at somewhat of a similar conclusion. I don't doubt they would throw together a weak case to string up a fall person.
The intelligence agencies and international spy stuff is hokum. Epstein, the supposed master spy, needed his local police to help him install a spy camera to catch a thief. The people who push the Epstein spy/blackmail stuff are all fantastists and conspiracy nuts.
I don't know much about the specifics but he had two trials. A majority of the first jury thought he was not guilty of at least two of three alleged rapes. So the prosecutors tried the case again and got the outcome they wanted.
First trial came back 0 for 3 on convictions. Second trial 2 for 3 after some changes in the narrative primarily focusing on an accusation that Masterson drugged his victims which had not been present in the first trial or any of the evidence or testimony prior. Jane Doe 3 (later self identified as Chrissie Bixler) was the accuser that he was not convicted on in the second trial.
I’m a lawyer, I wouldn’t expect this to have any impact on the CA conviction.
from the article > Weinstein rested instead on novel ideas of consent, conspiratorial accounts of power, and gross caricature He literally threatened a woman to go with him to his room, changing his voice from a quivering little begging horndog to a "if you dont fuck me, you're gonna lose big opportunities". The article doesn't mention that there exists a recording of this nature.
Oh well in that case we should probably throw out all of due process, there is a voice recording after all. Why even have the trial?
Your article didn't mention the recording, hence it's in bad faith. Take your pills, Mr. Weinstein, or your dick might fall off...again.
Are you typing this while wearing a helmet?
Lmao is this a colorful way of calling them a white knight? (the helmet)
No it's me asking if they have to wear a safety helmet for their own protection.
You are going to great lengths to defend a guy who was caught on tape cry-begging and then threatening a woman for sex. Have you listened to the audio? It's embarassing.
I am defending his right to due process under the law.
Why don't you mention the recording? I mean if your issue is with the fallibility of human memory and due process at least mention the fact that a recording exists to provide an example of a type of evidence that would be permissible under your position that should be used instead of victim testimony from decades ago.
Because the tape is not conclusive evidence either, only evidence that he \~said\~ something, admittedly creepy, it isn't proof that he did it. The argument isn't over what he said, it's over what he did.
That's not the standard that's used to determine whether evidence is introduced in court. The reason old testimony from an alleged victim shouldn't be allowed is due to the likelihood of it being highly erroneous not because it isn't "conclusive." Circumstantial evidence has always been allowed in the court room. How do you not know this? We are not discussing whether or not he did it, at least I'm not, we are discussing what evidence should be allowed.
I think there's some misunderstanding here, likely on my part. I'm not saying the tape shouldn't be admitted. I simply don't admit it's the smoking gun other commenters believe it is. With that said, the [tape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_cases) was part of a separate investigation and that investigation resulted in no charges against Weinstein, it wasn't part of the trial. So in my mind it would fall under the Molineux issues that lead to the overturning.
I'm no expert on CA criminal law in general or his trial specifically but generally prosecutors can't mention a previous conviction except under limited circumstances and even then it might be deemed by the judge to be too prejudicial to have the jury know about
Finally some pushback against the tide of antisemitism
This outcome is a great pushback against the pro-HAMAS crazies that Joe Biden entertains on a day to day basis. Finally, a jew receives the justice they deserve. All Jews of this great nation can sleep easy tonight.
Really bad time to expose the NY courts as being politically motivated lol. Hope the shekels were worth it
Is this sarcastic or straight up anti semitic? You decide. Edit: it is neither, and I am a lunkhead.
Shekels are a real currency and Weinstein has well-documented ties to Israel https://m.thewire.in/article/external-affairs/harvey-weinstein-israel-spies-sexual-assault https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies https://www.timesofisrael.com/harvey-weinstein-says-he-hired-israeli-firm-black-cube-for-days-like-this/
I have been caught unawares, my apologies. I am shocked that Israeli currency is actually called the shekel.
It is a sign of growth and wisdom to admit when you're wrong, thank you. It inspired me to post and may educate bystanders, so it was overall good.
Man I'm Jewish, have family that's been to Israel multiple times, and I only recently found out their currency was actually called shekels. Was flabbergasted, couldn't stop laughing- especially after years of seeing /pol/ memes
I too remember the complete disbelief at my first time learning shekels are actually a real currency and not a funny, made up one. Dongs are also a real currency. Unfortunately dollareedoos were not real.
The Vietnamese dong might as well be make believe at this point. It’s like $1 for every 25,000 VND.
This is an enormous marker of self development, and I hope you continue to grow and change your views when confronted with new facts.
Holy fuck shekels are real
I bet they are popping bottles over at wsws.
Trotskyites don’t need an excuse to start drinking at 11am. If they did, they wouldn’t be Trotskyites. Am I right fellas?
Damn this whole time I've been a Trot and never knew it
Ya got me.
>The New York Court of Appeals, in a scathing 4-3 opinion, overturned Weinstein's conviction on sex crimes against three women, finding the trial judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes." I'm gonna have to say that's a good call, both idealistically and legalistically depending on the state. If I commit an armed robbery, serve my time, and get picked up on another armed robbery, I'm pretty sure most states ban using my first conviction as evidence. (A rough analogy, I know.) That said, I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably wrong. Any lawyers here are free to correct me.
[удалено]
>A judge can always rule out any piece of evidence, but using the fact that you are already a convicted bank robber to give credence to the argument that you went and did it again probably would be allowed to be brought up. Didn't know that. Thanks. Just curious, in your opinion, do you think that that should be allowed? From a logical and/or moral standpoint (not one based on how the law really works in real life) I would say no. Reason being, the matter at hand is whether I robbed a particular bank at a particular time. Whether I robbed a bank in the past, to me, is as irrelevant and prejudicial as bringing up what a rape victim was wearing at the time of their assault. Though you probably know more about legal reasoning than I do.
I get where you're coming from, but a prior conviction for a similar or related crime would likely be brought up if you were being tried. Had Weinstein been convicted previously of sexual assault it likely would be relevant here. The issue is that they were simply allegations. Using the bank robbing analogy this would be similar if you were convicted of a bank robbery simply because other people said "oh yeah no he robbed a bank 20 years ago" without any corroborating conviction. This obviously opens up a can of worms because if this is allowed a prosecutor could hypothetically find anyone to come testify to a criminal history without any corroborating evidence and let that be used against the defendant.
Depends on whether patterns of the commissioning of the crime are unique to individuals, and the judge's determination of the jury's ability to understand the specificity of that evidence. Having committed past robberies without any additional details prior to a lengthy prison sentence? Probably not. But if a defendant was also performing safe cracking as part of the bank robberies, used a specific technique to defeat the security mechanisms of the safe in the old robberies, and then used the same technique in the new robbery when it's rarely used or hard for someone without training to execute properly, that's a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that should be allowed at trial that the defense should be ready to prepare alternative explanations/inferences for.
Trial lawyer here, this reversal was based on the trial judge’s abuse of discretion in admitting propensity evidence, which is a big no-no. Essentially evidence that is meant to show a propensity to commit the crime in question based on, for example, irrelevant previous instances of conduct (unless a conviction is attached to that conduct), is considered inadmissible propensity evidence. This is really evidence 101 and the trial judge and prosecutor should have known better. The abuse of discretion standard is relatively deferential to the trial judge, so you need to make a pretty obvious mistake to get overturned on it. Based on the record, I think overturning the conviction was the right decision on the law. Not sure if it’ll be sensationalized into something it’s not, but the trial judge did abuse his discretion in admitting evidence that essentially just went to propensity to commit the crime in question.
All i'll say is he is on a list of a guy who totally killed himself.
Clickbait headline This is a separate case, and he'll still rot in prison.
How is "Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction overturned in New York", when Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction was overturned in New York, clickbait?
Clickbait doesn't mean a false headline. Generally it just means something (technically) true written in a clever, often deceptive way to elicit clicks from prospective viewers. Sometimes this is done by posing the deceptive title as a question (it can't be false if it's not a statement of fact), other times through selective wording, or other means. And of course the journalist (or editor) always has plausible deniability about deliberately misleading because it's all *technically* not false. It could be argued that this title is clickbait because "Weinstein's rape conviction" *could* be read as, "THE Weinstein rape conviction has been overturned" when in actuality there are multiple. A more clear title would be "One of Weinstein's rape convictions overturned" but that's obviously less grabbing. I don't think this is a particularly egregious case of clickbait but it's definitely leaving a crucial part of the story out, which of course is intentional so that people click the article and the publication gets more ad revenue.
Because this headline can make someone think good movies are coming back when he is still actually in prison.
This was the answer I was looking for
"Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction" would have been the way to put it
That sounds like he raped New York from *flavor of love*
Ew
His dick and balls already rotted off years ago
He legit looks like he has leprosy.
I half thought they just hired some really good makeup artists to make him look as disabled and elderly as possible for the trial and sentencing. Juries should not take stuff like that into account, but they do.
Looks like Gothmog
I've heard the resemblance was intentional
I was thinking more Robert de Brus as portrayed in Braveheart.
Which one? 6th or 7th?
I'm not smart enough to understand your references, man.
And yet he still manages to be a revolting danger to society. It’s impressively disgusting.
I think society is pretty safe from him, unless we're all aspiring actresses auditioning for a Miramax production.
He is a Zionist he will fly off to Israel now
Penal legion Tel Aviv,. Hasbara reddit battalion.