Breaking News
January 1, MISTRIAL: Harvey Weinstein Jury DEADLOCKS After Explosive Retrial
Wyatt’s Take
- Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape retrial just collapsed — jury couldn’t reach a verdict, and now prosecutors face another massive setback in what was supposed to be the #MeToo movement’s crown jewel case
- This marks the second time the legal system has failed to deliver the slam-dunk conviction the media promised us — raises serious questions about whether these cases were ever as airtight as Hollywood and the press claimed
- While the accusations are serious, the jury deadlock shows Americans still believe in due process and won’t rubber-stamp guilty verdicts just because activists demand it
Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape retrial came crashing down Friday when the jury announced they were hopelessly deadlocked. The judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial.
This is a devastating blow for prosecutors who thought they had this case locked up. It was supposed to be the defining legal victory of the #MeToo era — a moment to prove the movement could deliver justice in the courtroom, not just headlines.
Instead, it’s back to square one. The jury couldn’t agree, and now the whole circus starts over again — if prosecutors even decide to try a third time.
The media spent years telling us Weinstein’s guilt was a foregone conclusion. They turned his trials into morality plays, with reporters acting more like activists than journalists. But juries don’t work that way — they need evidence, not emotions.
This deadlock proves that even in the most high-profile cases, American jurors still take their responsibility seriously. They won’t convict just because Twitter wants them to or because the accusations sound horrific.
That’s called the rule of law. It’s messy, it’s frustrating, but it’s what separates us from mob justice.
Weinstein is already serving time in California on separate convictions, so he’s not walking free. But this New York retrial was supposed to reinforce the narrative that #MeToo always gets its man. Instead, it shows that even the most famous cases can fall apart when put to the legal test.
The prosecution bet big on this retrial, especially after Weinstein’s original 2020 New York conviction was overturned on appeal. They had a second chance to make their case stick — and the jury still couldn’t agree.
That tells you something about the strength of the evidence, or the lack thereof. It tells you that courtroom drama doesn’t always match the media hype.
Now prosecutors have to decide: Do they go for round three, or do they finally admit this case isn’t the sure thing they thought it was?
Wyatt Matters
This mistrial is a reminder that justice isn’t about checking boxes for political movements — it’s about evidence, fairness, and the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Americans still believe in that, even when the mob doesn’t.
-
Entertainment3 years agoWhoopi Goldberg’s “Wildly Inappropriate” Commentary Forces “The View” into Unscheduled Commercial Break
-
Entertainment3 years ago‘He’s A Pr*ck And F*cking Hates Republicans’: Megyn Kelly Goes Off on Don Lemon
-
Featured3 years agoUS Advises Citizens to Leave This Country ASAP
-
Featured3 years agoBenghazi Hero: Hillary Clinton is “One of the Most Disgusting Humans on Earth”
-
Latest News2 years agoNude Woman Wields Spiked Club in Daylight Venice Beach Brawl
-
Entertainment2 years agoComedy Mourns Legend Richard Lewis: A Heartfelt Farewell
-
Featured3 years agoFox News Calls Security on Donald Trump Jr. at GOP Debate [Video]
-
Latest News2 years agoSupreme Court Gift: Trump’s Trial Delayed, Election Interference Allegations Linger
Jamesd Wills
May 16, 2026 at 6:26 am
This guy has a couple of things going against him, the most problematic of which is that he’s not good-looking – something not to be underestimated in a court trial. That does not make him a rapist. Nor does regret make his accusers victims.
These were not little girls; they were adult women, and – according to most opinions – as such were perfectly capable of making adult decisions. And being modern women, they controlled their bodies, which they decided to rent out to Mr. Weinstein at considerable profit, to wit: a few minutes of slap-and-tickle for a career in the movies. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Liberty Belle
May 16, 2026 at 8:50 am
Can’t help comparing the “Director’s Couch” aspect of Weinstein with that of another high-profile accused rapist, William Clinton and his battered accuser Juanita Broderick who never got her day in court. Proof was there, post-action witness(es) there, and the pimp was there–the latter being Hillary R. Clinton who famously addressed Ms. Broderick in the “welcome” line the next morning with, “Thank you for everything you’ve done for my husband, and I do mean EVERYTHING.” Put ice on that lip. Ms. Broderick probably should have demanded that Clinton wait in the lobby while she retrieved papers, but his hefty standing quieted that inner voice.
David Jove
May 16, 2026 at 7:09 am
Well said Mr. Wills. Fame and fortunes made these women holier than thou thanks to him. Instead of standing tall and holding their ground. But then, they’d be flipping burgers. There’s honor in a burger.
Gary Lewis
May 16, 2026 at 10:31 am
Honor, perhaps, but not much money. It’s called a trade; value for value. These women knew what they were getting into with this guy and did it anyway. They’ll get no sympathy from me.
Val E. Forge
May 16, 2026 at 1:04 pm
These shrews who squealed expected modern feminism: equality when it’s good for her and chivalry when it’s not.
Hypocrites.
Val E. Forge
May 16, 2026 at 1:04 pm
These shrews who squealed expected modern feminism: equality when it’s good for her and chivalry when it’s not.
Hypocrites.
Dr. J. Boost
May 16, 2026 at 1:04 pm
“justice isn’t about checking boxes for political movements”
THAT WOULD BE SOOOO NICE!
Troy
May 16, 2026 at 4:19 pm
Prostitutes who claim rape, shouldn’t expect sympathy or favorable courtroom verdicts.