All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2025 - Lionel Nation
10:41
Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction OVERTURNED?! The Truth They’re NOT Telling You!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man underground safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
All right, well, Harvey Weinstein is being retried this week in New York.
Being against him seemed like an open and shut case that basically launched us into the Me Too era.
But something that was not obvious to everyone is that he may not have had a fair trial.
And we're not advocating for Harvey Weinstein.
We're advocating for equal justice under the law.
What is there that the mainstream media won't tell us about?
Well, Lionel from Lionel Nation is a litigator and constitutional expert.
His Lionel Nation YouTube channel breaks all this down.
He's been following Weinstein.
He's been following Diddy.
He's been following Epstein.
So, Lionel, thank you for joining us.
What is there to retry in the Weinstein case?
Oh, I don't hear you.
Do you hear him?
Oh, he's muted.
Oh.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, not yet.
There we go!
There we go!
All right, yeah, what's there to be seen?
Yes, in the case of Harvey Epstein, which I think is a perfect truncation of both of them, here's the bottom line.
The reason why this was overturned, and I'm 100% for it, is that there is something in law called prior or similar fact evidence.
And in New York, there was a case in 1901 called the Molyneux case.
And what it means is this.
If you, as a prosecutor, have to prove something like intent or plan or lack of mistake, I can use your prior instances of wrongdoing.
That you have not been charged with to make a case.
Let's say, for example, Natalie, you're charged with arson.
And in prior arsons, you used a particular way of taking baby dolls and soaking them in gasoline.
This is actually kind of an example that's used.
And you had this unique MO, this thing that you did every time you left playing cards and a note.
And we don't know who it is this time, but this arsonist...
Did exactly what you did in a prior case.
Under the cases of similar fact evidence, I can bring that before a jury to say, see, this is Natalie, because this behavior is similar to other behavior that she might not have been charged with.
That makes sense.
If there's confusion, if there's a reason.
In the case of Harvey Weinstein, why do we have evidence for cases of other women?
Claiming he attempted to abuse them.
What's the purpose of this?
There was no question as to who it was.
It was Harvey Weinstein.
He didn't have a unique M.O. He didn't say anything.
There was no evidence.
There was no benefit other than to tell the jury, where there's smoke, there's fire.
And if you don't find them guilty of this one, well, this no-good SOB did this in the past.
And that is precisely what the appellate court said.
Other people are saying, no, no, no, this is an attempt to address the Me Too movement, and I'm all for that.
But the problem is when relevant evidence, so-called relevant evidence, is so prejudicial that a jury says, well, you didn't tell me about these other cases.
Well, he must be guilty then.
And that's where we're headed.
So I don't like him, and between you and me, he probably did everything they said he did.
Oh, 80 women?
We've heard about this creep, but this is a courtroom.
Whether it's Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein or anybody, you have to ask yourself, why are we talking about this case with these victims, this evidence, now?
Who cares what he did before?
If I could give one more example, that happens all the time.
In the case where there's a terrible case, let's say of a child who's murdered, this happens more often than not.
You have to identify the body.
You have to identify the deceased.
In the old days, prosecutors would show the worst picture, the most horrible picture of the child, let's say, in the morgue, to, let's say, a mother.
The mother would scream, that's my baby!
And courts would say, wait a minute, that's relevant, of course, the identity of the deceased, but this outweighs any prejudice towards the defendant.
We have to balance this.
I don't care if you're Son of Sam, Harvey Weinstein, or Harvey Epstein, or anybody for that matter.
You don't need this.
Why don't we just take the words of these women alone?
Tell me what happened.
Where were you?
But how can they do that, though?
Because every juror...
Is going to know the reputation of Harvey Weinstein.
So you can't say, forget that he ejaculated into a plant or was mean to Salma Hayek and abused her on set or anything.
And let's just see, did he do this thing to this one victim and was it rape?
They may not know that.
I'm sure, listen, this idea of people, everybody is, do you think Diddy can get a fair trial?
Do you think, you know, the last time we ever had a change of venue, remember that relic from time gone by?
I think the best case ever was, this is before your time, Murph the Surf.
This guy was so, they, son of Sam Shepard was another case where the, you know, the evidence.
Do you think O.J. Simpson, do you think today, In this world of social media that we live in, anybody can go anywhere?
Of course not.
But it's one thing, Natalie, to say, oh, I remember the thing about the planter or about this.
Or maybe I don't.
But when I have women in a courtroom who said, well, let me tell you something.
You're on trial for parking tickets.
And somebody brings up the fact that you were charged with shoplifting at a Costco.
Wait a minute.
What does that have to do with anything?
It shows a criminal propensity.
Well, that is verboten.
Now, I know this guy is a creep, but here's the question.
What defense does he have?
You don't need to do this.
Put a woman on the stand and say, here's what happened.
This is what he did.
This is where I was.
This is what he told me.
And that's it.
Harvey's not going to take this can to refute it.
You don't need this overkill.
And plus, let me ask you this.
What about having women outside the courtroom chanting his name?
Chanting, you know, basically, hang him.
It's like a lynch mob outside.
Do you think anybody deserves that?
Now, it's hard to tell people.
Outside, whether you can protest or not.
But when it seeps through the windows, I mean, listen, you're going to find the guy guilty.
Give him at least a chance.
And I'm not suggesting he has any kind of a defense there is.
But this similar fact of it is prosecutors are too lazy with it.
There has to be a reason, especially if there's a case it has come in handy before where you have somebody who is, let's say, kidnapped.
They can't ID the defendant.
He wore a mask.
Well, in this other case, he wore the identical mask, people.
So that makes sense.
But even he deserves this.
And let me tell you something.
He and Diddy and others, once you're charged, let's face it, you're through.
You are done.
You're finished.
And I'm going to say the worst thing, friends, that...
Harvey Weinstein has so little jury appeal.
He's hideous.
He's disgusting.
There's nothing about him.
He's no Luigi Mangioni.
There's nobody out there.
Taylor Lorenz is in love with him.
Maybe she would.
The criminal justice defines and requires that we give people a fair trial.
Not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.
Give the guy a break.
You don't need three witnesses.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, we got to leave it there, Lionel.
We are such a jam-packed show for you.
But I think you're right, and I think you're absolutely right that he is a hideous human being.
He's a hideous-looking human being.
A lot of people in the chat are like, wow, that guy is just repugnant on every level he is.
I hope you're not talking about it.
I guess the question, though, that still remains is, though, if they did not give him a fair trial, if they sold us this, you know, Worse than he already was story.
To what end?
What were they manipulating us to rally around the Me Too movement?
What did we get from it and what weren't we told?
So those are questions we'll continue to explore.
Again, we're not advocating for Harvey Weinstein.
We're asking what were we collectively invited to champion and to what end and who gained power from it?
So those are the outstanding questions.
Lionel, great to see you.
Thank you so much on a busy news day on this Tuesday.
We appreciate it.
It's always great to see you.
Thank you, friends.
▲
Export Selection