In the age of instantaneous information and social media, narratives can easily become skewed, leading to widespread misconceptions and misunderstandings. In the second episode of her YouTube series, Candace Owens dives into the controversial topic surrounding the emails between Harvey and Mimi. This exploration reveals a compelling narrative that contrasts sharply with the mainstream media’s portrayal of events. As we unpack the details and nuances of these correspondences, it becomes crucial to differentiate between sensationalized accounts and the facts on the ground. Join us as we fact check the claims and statements presented in this explosive discussion, shedding light on the truths that may have been overlooked or misrepresented.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 03/09/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Gloria Allred represents numerous women who make allegations and men lose absolutely everything as a consequence.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Gloria Allred represents numerous women who make allegations and men lose absolutely everything as a consequence, it is essential to examine her legal practice and the outcomes of cases she has handled. Gloria Allred is a prominent civil rights attorney known for representing clients in high-profile cases involving sexual misconduct, harassment, and discrimination.

## Overview of Gloria Allred's Practice

Gloria Allred has a long history of representing clients in cases involving sexual misconduct and harassment. She has been involved in numerous high-profile cases, including those against figures like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and R. Kelly[3][5]. Her approach often involves using media attention to highlight her clients' cases, which can influence public opinion and potentially impact the accused individuals' reputations and careers[1][5].

## Impact on the Accused

While it is true that allegations of sexual misconduct can have severe consequences for the accused, including loss of reputation, employment, and even freedom, it is not accurate to generalize that men always lose "absolutely everything" as a consequence of Allred's representation. The outcomes depend on the specifics of each case, including the evidence presented and the legal process followed.

### Examples of Cases

1. **University of Connecticut Case**: Allred represented women alleging sexual assault and discrimination at the University of Connecticut. The case led to a federal investigation into the university's handling of sexual violence allegations[1].

2. **Bob Filner Case**: Allred's efforts contributed to the resignation of former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner following sexual harassment allegations. The city settled a lawsuit related to these allegations[1].

3. **Sean "Diddy" Combs Case**: Allred represents accusers of Diddy, who faces multiple allegations of sexual assault and trafficking. While these allegations are serious, the legal outcomes are pending[2][3].

4. **Harvey Weinstein Case**: Allred has represented accusers of Weinstein, who was convicted of sexual assault. However, the admissibility of certain testimonies and the handling of evidence have been controversial aspects of his trials[2][3].

## Conclusion

The claim that Gloria Allred's representation leads to men losing "absolutely everything" is an oversimplification. While her cases often result in significant consequences for the accused, these outcomes are determined by the legal process and the strength of the evidence presented. Allred's use of media attention can amplify the impact of allegations, but it does not guarantee specific outcomes. The societal balance between seeking truth and addressing complex emotional narratives is crucial in these cases[1][3][5].

In summary, while Gloria Allred's representation can have significant impacts on the accused, it is not accurate to assert that men always lose everything as a consequence. The legal system's role in evaluating evidence and determining guilt or innocence is paramount in these cases.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein has not taken the witness stand in his last two criminal trials in New York and California.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Harvey Weinstein has not taken the witness stand in his last two criminal trials in New York and California, we need to examine the available information on his trials.

## New York Trial

In the New York trial, Weinstein was convicted in 2020 of rape and a criminal sex act. The trial involved testimony from several women who accused him of sexual misconduct, but these testimonies were not part of the charges against him. The Court of Appeals later overturned this conviction, citing errors in admitting testimony about uncharged acts and potential cross-examination of Weinstein if he had testified[1][2][3]. However, there is no specific mention in these sources that Weinstein took the stand during this trial.

## California Trial

In the California trial, Weinstein was convicted in December 2022 of rape, sexual penetration by a foreign object, and forcible oral copulation. Similar to the New York trial, additional women testified to demonstrate a pattern in his behavior[5]. Again, there is no indication from available sources that Weinstein testified during this trial.

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no evidence to suggest that Harvey Weinstein took the witness stand in either his New York or California trials. The sources do not explicitly state that he testified, and the focus has been on the admissibility of other witnesses' testimonies and legal appeals rather than Weinstein's own testimony.

Therefore, the claim that Harvey Weinstein has not taken the witness stand in his last two criminal trials appears to be accurate based on the lack of evidence to the contrary in the provided sources. However, without direct confirmation from trial transcripts or official statements, this conclusion is based on the absence of contradictory information rather than explicit affirmation.

Citations

Claim

The New York appeals court judges overturned Harvey Weinstein's conviction with a majority of four judges voting yes and three voting no.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the New York appeals court judges overturned Harvey Weinstein's conviction with a majority of four judges voting yes and three voting no is **true**. This decision was made by the New York Court of Appeals, which is the state's highest court, on April 25, 2024.

### Evidence and Details

1. **Court Decision**: The New York Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction in a 4-3 decision. The court ruled that the trial judge had improperly allowed testimony about uncharged allegations, which prejudiced Weinstein's case[1][2][3].

2. **Legal Basis**: The court's majority opinion stated that the trial judge's decision to admit testimony about uncharged acts was an abuse of judicial discretion. This testimony was deemed to serve no material non-propensity purpose and portrayed Weinstein in a highly prejudicial light[2][4].

3. **Impact and Reaction**: The decision has been met with mixed reactions. While Weinstein's legal team sees it as a victory for fair trial rights, many advocates for sexual assault victims view it as a setback for the #MeToo movement[1][3][4].

4. **Future Proceedings**: Despite the overturned conviction, Weinstein remains incarcerated due to a separate conviction in Los Angeles. The Manhattan district attorney's office has expressed its intention to retry Weinstein on the rape charges[1][2].

### Conclusion

The claim is supported by multiple reliable sources, including news reports from ABC News, TIME, and PBS NewsHour, which all confirm the 4-3 decision by the New York Court of Appeals to overturn Harvey Weinstein's conviction[1][2][3][4]. This ruling highlights ongoing debates about legal procedures in high-profile sexual assault cases and their implications for both defendants and accusers.

Citations

Claim

One of the judges who disagreed about reversing the conviction stated that 'New York women deserve better than that.'

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that one of the judges who disagreed about reversing the conviction stated that 'New York women deserve better than that,' we need to examine the available court documents and opinions related to recent high-profile cases, particularly those involving Harvey Weinstein.

## Claim Evaluation

The claim suggests that a judge made a specific statement during a dissenting opinion in a case related to serious allegations against a figure like Harvey Weinstein. The statement in question is: "New York women deserve better than that." This phrase is indeed mentioned in a dissenting opinion, as seen in a recent New York Court of Appeals decision involving Harvey Weinstein.

In the decision from April 25, 2024, Judge Cannataro dissented, stating, "Because New York's women deserve better, I dissent" [4]. This indicates that the claim is **valid**. The context of this statement is a dissenting opinion regarding the handling of Weinstein's case, specifically addressing concerns about the admissibility of certain testimony and its impact on the trial's fairness.

## Context and Relevance

The discussion around high-profile cases like Weinstein's often involves critiques of legal strategies and courtroom practices. Attorney Gloria Allred, known for representing victims in sexual misconduct cases, has faced criticism for her approach, including the use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) [3]. However, the specific claim about the judge's statement is not directly related to Allred's practices but rather to the judicial handling of Weinstein's case.

## Conclusion

The claim that a judge stated 'New York women deserve better than that' in a dissenting opinion is **verified** by the New York Court of Appeals decision in the Weinstein case. This statement reflects concerns about the legal process and its impact on victims, highlighting the complexities of balancing justice with the rights of both accusers and the accused.

## References

– [4] New York Court of Appeals Decision in *People v Weinstein*, April 25, 2024.
– [3] Business Insider article on Gloria Allred's practice and criticism.
– [5] Wikipedia entry on Gloria Allred for background information.

Citations

Claim

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.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim 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" can be evaluated through recent legal precedents and principles governing the admissibility of such evidence.

### Legal Framework

In general, evidence of uncharged misconduct is inadmissible if it serves only to show a defendant's propensity to commit crimes. This principle is rooted in the idea that a defendant should be tried for the specific crime charged, not for their character or past actions unless those actions are directly relevant to the case at hand[2][3].

### Specific Case: People v. Weinstein

In the case of **People v. Weinstein**, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, citing errors in admitting testimony about uncharged prior sexual acts. The court held that this testimony served no material non-propensity purpose and was prejudicial, undermining Weinstein's right to a fair trial[2][4]. This decision aligns with the claim that such testimony should not be admitted unless it serves a purpose beyond demonstrating propensity.

### Legal Rules and Exceptions

**Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414** provide exceptions for admitting evidence of prior sexual misconduct in cases involving sexual assault or child molestation. However, these rules are specific and do not apply universally to all criminal cases[3]. In general, courts must carefully weigh the probative value of such evidence against its potential for prejudice under **Rule 403**[1][5].

### Conclusion

The claim is supported by legal precedents and principles that emphasize the need for evidence of uncharged misconduct to serve a material non-propensity purpose. The Weinstein case illustrates the potential for error when such evidence is admitted without meeting these criteria, leading to prejudicial outcomes and undermining the fairness of trials.

### Evidence and Citations

– **People v. Weinstein**: The New York Court of Appeals decision highlights the importance of ensuring that testimony about uncharged acts serves a purpose beyond propensity[2][4].
– **Federal Rules of Evidence**: Rules like 404(b) and 413 provide frameworks for when such evidence can be admitted, emphasizing relevance and non-propensity purposes[1][3].
– **General Legal Principles**: Courts must balance the probative value of evidence against its potential for prejudice, as outlined in Rule 403[1][5].

Citations

Claim

Judge James Burke made two key decisions that affected the outcome of the Harvey Weinstein trial, allowing three women whose accusations were not part of the case to testify.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Judge James Burke made two key decisions affecting the outcome of the Harvey Weinstein trial, particularly allowing three women whose accusations were not part of the case to testify, we need to examine the available evidence and court rulings.

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Allowing Testimony of Uncharged Acts**: The claim that Judge James Burke allowed three women to testify about uncharged acts is supported by multiple sources. The New York Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein's 2020 conviction, citing that the trial court erred by admitting testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants[1][2][3]. This decision was based on the principle that such testimony can be highly prejudicial and was not directly relevant to the charges at hand[1][3].

2. **Impact on Trial Outcome**: The Court of Appeals found that these decisions by Judge Burke were egregious errors that undermined Weinstein's right to a fair trial. Specifically, the court noted that allowing such testimony created a "mini trial" within the trial itself, focusing on uncharged acts rather than the specific charges against Weinstein[1]. Additionally, the court criticized the prosecution's strategy of threatening to question Weinstein about numerous uncharged allegations if he testified, which effectively silenced him[1][5].

3. **Second Key Decision**: While the claim specifically mentions allowing three women to testify, the broader context includes another significant decision related to Weinstein's right to testify. The court criticized the prosecution's plan to confront Weinstein with a myriad of uncharged allegations if he took the stand, which the court believed undermined his Sixth Amendment right to testify[1][5].

## Conclusion

The claim that Judge James Burke made key decisions affecting the Harvey Weinstein trial by allowing testimony on uncharged acts is supported by the evidence. The New York Court of Appeals' decision to overturn Weinstein's conviction highlights the prejudicial nature of such testimony and its impact on the trial's fairness[1][2][3]. However, the claim does not fully capture the complexity of the issues raised, including the prosecution's strategy and its implications for Weinstein's ability to testify[1][5].

In summary, Judge Burke's decisions regarding the admissibility of testimony on uncharged acts and the potential questioning of Weinstein about other allegations were critical factors in the appeal court's decision to overturn the conviction and order a retrial.

Citations

Claim

Preborn's network of clinics has rescued over 300,000 lives.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Preborn's Network of Clinics Rescued Over 300,000 Lives

To assess the accuracy of Preborn's claim that their network of clinics has rescued over 300,000 lives, we need to examine available records and reports from the organization itself or from reputable sources that track such data.

### Available Information

1. **Preborn's Claims**: According to Preborn's website, they claim to have saved over 298,000 babies through their efforts, which include providing free ultrasounds and support to mothers[2]. This figure is close to the claimed 300,000 but slightly lower.

2. **Lack of External Verification**: There is no external, independent verification of these numbers in the provided search results. Typically, such claims would be verified through reports from the organization or independent audits.

3. **Pro-Life Organizations and Ultrasound Machines**: Other pro-life organizations, like Focus on the Family, have also reported significant numbers of ultrasound machines placed and babies saved, but these figures are not directly linked to Preborn's claims[4].

### Conclusion

While Preborn claims to have saved over 298,000 babies, which is close to the figure of 300,000, there is no independent verification of this claim in the available search results. For a thorough assessment, access to Preborn's internal reports or external audits would be necessary. The claim is partially supported by Preborn's own data but lacks independent corroboration.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

– **Internal Reports**: Obtain and review Preborn's annual reports or internal documents that detail their activities and outcomes.
– **Independent Audits**: Look for audits or assessments conducted by independent third-party organizations that verify the impact of Preborn's efforts.
– **Comparative Data**: Compare Preborn's claims with data from similar organizations or government reports on abortion rates and pregnancy support services to assess consistency and plausibility.

### Additional Context

The discussion around false accusations and legal strategies, particularly those involving Gloria Allred, is a separate issue from the claim about Preborn's impact. It highlights broader societal concerns about legal practices and the handling of sensitive cases, but it does not directly relate to the verification of Preborn's claims.

Citations

Claim

Colin Callender is somebody who was working at HBO.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Colin Callender's Association with HBO

The claim that Colin Callender was working at HBO can be verified through multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Professional History**: Colin Callender joined HBO in 1987 as the Executive Producer of HBO Showcase, a position he held after establishing himself as a film and television producer in the UK[2][4]. This marked the beginning of his long tenure with the network.

2. **Role as President of HBO Films**: In 1999, Callender became the President of HBO Films, a role in which he consolidated HBO's existing film divisions and significantly contributed to the network's critical and commercial success[1][2]. Under his leadership, HBO Films produced numerous award-winning movies and miniseries.

3. **Notable Productions**: During his time at HBO, Callender oversaw the production of acclaimed projects such as *Angels in America*, *John Adams*, and *Recount*, which garnered numerous awards, including Emmys and Golden Globes[1][3].

4. **Departure from HBO**: Callender left HBO in 2008 after 21 years, during which he played a pivotal role in shaping the network's film and miniseries division[2][4].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reputable sources, the claim that Colin Callender worked at HBO is **true**. His significant contributions to HBO's success, particularly as President of HBO Films, are well-documented and highlight his influential role in the television and film industry[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

On July 26th, the accuser says that Harvey assaulted her again at the Tribeca Grand Hotel.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that on July 26th, the accuser says Harvey Weinstein assaulted her again at the Tribeca Grand Hotel, we can rely on testimonies and reports from the case.

**Claim Evaluation:**

1. **Testimony of Mimi Haleyi**: Mimi Haleyi testified during the Harvey Weinstein trial that she was assaulted by Weinstein on two occasions. The first incident occurred at his Soho apartment, and the second incident took place at the Tribeca Grand Hotel on July 26, 2006. Haleyi described how Weinstein invited her to his hotel room for a drink, where he allegedly took her hand and pulled her toward a bed. She stated that she felt trapped and did not physically resist, which she later acknowledged as a form of assault because it was not consensual[1][3].

2. **Legal Proceedings**: The New York Court of Appeals later overturned Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction, citing issues with the admissibility of certain testimonies. However, this decision did not directly address the specific incident at the Tribeca Grand Hotel but rather the broader legal strategy and evidence presentation in the case[4].

3. **Witness Accounts and Motivations**: The discussion around Weinstein's case often involves examining witness accounts and the motivations behind connections between the accused and accusers post-allegations. This includes scrutinizing the legal strategies employed by attorneys and the impact of emotional appeals in high-profile cases[5].

**Conclusion:**

The claim that on July 26th, the accuser (Mimi Haleyi) says Harvey Weinstein assaulted her again at the Tribeca Grand Hotel is supported by Haleyi's testimony during the trial. While the legal context and admissibility of certain testimonies have been controversial, Haleyi's account of the incident at the Tribeca Grand Hotel is documented in court records and media reports[1][3].

However, it is important to note that the legal definition of assault and the specifics of consent can be complex, and Haleyi herself acknowledged that she did not physically resist during the encounter, which she later recognized as a form of assault due to the lack of consent[1].

Citations

Claim

On July 27th, she has an entry to call Dan Guando about tickets that Harvey Weinstein provided for her to fly to London.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Communication About Flight Tickets

The claim in question involves a woman's calendar entry on July 27th, where she allegedly contacted Dan Guando, Harvey Weinstein's assistant, about tickets provided by Weinstein for a flight to London. To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider the available evidence and context.

### Available Evidence

1. **Calendar Entries and Documentation**: The claim is supported by the mention of a calendar entry on July 27th, where the woman is said to have called Dan Guando about tickets. However, this information is derived from a transcript discussing Harvey Weinstein's case and does not provide direct access to the calendar or related documentation[2].

2. **Contextual Background**: The context involves allegations of sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein, with discussions around the woman's interactions with Weinstein and his team. The narrative highlights inconsistencies in her actions post-alleged assault, such as continuing communication with Weinstein's assistant[2].

### Evaluation

– **Direct Evidence**: There is no direct evidence provided in the search results to confirm the existence or content of the calendar entry. The information is based on a transcript discussing the case, which may not be a primary source[2].

– **Contextual Relevance**: The claim is part of a broader discussion about the complexities of sexual assault allegations, including the scrutiny of accusers' actions and motivations. It suggests that despite an alleged unwanted encounter, the woman maintained some level of communication with Weinstein's team[2].

– **Legal and Social Implications**: The narrative touches on legal strategies and societal perceptions of such cases, emphasizing the importance of verifying evidence and understanding the motivations behind actions post-allegations[2].

### Conclusion

While the claim about the calendar entry and communication regarding flight tickets is mentioned in a transcript related to Harvey Weinstein's case, it lacks direct evidence from primary sources such as the calendar itself or official documentation. The validity of the claim depends on the availability of such evidence and its context within the broader legal and social discussions surrounding sexual assault allegations.

In summary, without access to the specific calendar entry or related documentation, the claim remains unsubstantiated based on the provided sources.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein paid for her ticket to fly to London on August 2nd.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Harvey Weinstein Paid for Her Ticket to Fly to London on August 2nd

To assess the validity of the claim that Harvey Weinstein paid for a ticket for someone to fly to London on August 2nd, we need to examine available evidence, such as flight records, receipts, and testimonies from relevant parties.

### Available Information

1. **Transcript Evidence**: The transcript from "Harvey Speaks" mentions that Harvey Weinstein agreed to give someone tickets to fly to London on August 2nd. The individual in question had interactions with Weinstein's assistant, Dan Guando, regarding these tickets[1]. However, this source does not provide concrete evidence like receipts or flight records.

2. **Legal and Public Records**: There is no publicly available documentation or legal records specifically confirming that Weinstein paid for a flight to London on August 2nd. Legal proceedings against Weinstein have focused on sexual assault allegations rather than financial transactions for travel[4].

3. **Flight Records and Receipts**: To verify this claim, access to specific flight records and receipts would be necessary. These documents are typically private and not publicly available unless disclosed through legal proceedings or voluntary release.

### Analysis

– **Credibility of Sources**: The transcript from "Harvey Speaks" suggests a narrative involving Weinstein's interactions with an individual, including travel arrangements. However, without corroborating evidence from flight records or receipts, this remains anecdotal.

– **Legal Context**: Weinstein's legal cases have centered on sexual assault allegations, with no specific mention of financial transactions for travel in the publicly available legal documents[4].

– **Conclusion**: While there is a narrative suggesting Weinstein paid for a flight to London, concrete evidence such as flight records or receipts is needed to confirm this claim. Without such evidence, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Access Flight Records**: Obtain flight records for August 2nd to verify if a ticket was purchased for the individual in question.
2. **Examine Financial Transactions**: Investigate financial records to see if there is evidence of payment by Weinstein for such a trip.
3. **Legal Documents Review**: Review any legal documents or testimonies that might mention this specific transaction.

In summary, while there is a narrative suggesting Weinstein paid for a flight to London, the claim lacks concrete evidence to be fully verified.

Citations

Claim

After having survived two unwanted encounters, she sent an email to Dan asking about the start of shooting for 'Catwalk', the British version of Project Runway.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that an individual sent an email to Dan about the start of shooting for 'Catwalk', the British version of *Project Runway*, after surviving two unwanted encounters, several steps can be taken:

## 1. **Email Correspondence Verification**
The claim can be verified by examining the email correspondence directly. This involves obtaining the email records and checking the content and timeline of the emails. However, without access to these specific emails, it's challenging to confirm the claim based solely on secondary information.

## 2. **Timeline of Events**
Verifying the timeline of events surrounding her professional engagements is crucial. This includes confirming the dates of the unwanted encounters and the start of shooting for *Catwalk*. If these timelines align with the claim, it supports its validity.

## 3. **Contextual Background**
Understanding the context of the unwanted encounters and their impact on the individual's actions is important. If the encounters were significant enough to prompt an email about a professional engagement, it might indicate a desire to focus on work or seek support.

## 4. **Legal Strategies and Public Discourse**
The broader context of legal strategies, particularly those employed by attorneys like Gloria Allred, and public discourse on false accusations and courtroom practices, can influence how such claims are perceived. However, these factors do not directly impact the verification of the specific email claim.

## 5. **Conclusion**
Without direct access to the email correspondence or specific details about the timeline and context of the events, the claim cannot be definitively verified. It is essential to rely on primary sources and direct evidence to assess the validity of such claims.

### Relevant Points for Further Investigation:
– **Email Records**: Obtain and review the email records for content and timeline.
– **Timeline Verification**: Confirm the dates of the unwanted encounters and the start of *Catwalk* shooting.
– **Contextual Analysis**: Understand the impact of the encounters on the individual's actions.

### Additional Considerations:
– Discussions around false accusations and legal strategies, while relevant to broader societal issues, do not directly impact the verification of this specific claim.
– The involvement of figures like Gloria Allred in high-profile cases highlights the complexity of legal and public discourse but does not provide direct evidence for this claim.

In summary, verifying the claim requires direct evidence from email records and timelines, which are not available in the provided search results. The broader context of legal strategies and public discourse on accusations does not directly impact the verification of this specific claim.

Citations

Claim

She alleges that she went to a meeting with Weinstein in London on November 6th to pitch a project to him.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that a woman alleges she went to a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in London on November 6th to pitch a project to him, we need to consider several factors:

1. **Testimony and Evidence**: The claim can be confirmed through her testimony and any related business records or schedules. However, without specific details about the woman or the project, it's challenging to verify this claim directly from available sources.

2. **Context of Weinstein's Allegations**: Harvey Weinstein has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including many instances where women reported being lured into meetings or encounters under professional pretenses, only to experience harassment or assault[1][3]. This pattern suggests that such a meeting could have occurred, but it doesn't directly confirm this specific claim.

3. **Legal and Public Discourse**: The discussion around Weinstein's cases often involves critiques of legal strategies and the handling of testimonies in court. While this context is relevant to understanding the broader societal and legal implications of such allegations, it doesn't provide direct evidence for this specific claim[5].

4. **Verification Challenges**: Without access to specific business records or schedules from Weinstein's team or the accuser, verifying the exact date and nature of the meeting is difficult. The claim relies heavily on the credibility of the accuser's testimony and any supporting documentation.

5. **Broader Patterns**: Many women have accused Weinstein of using professional meetings as a pretext for misconduct. This pattern supports the possibility that such a meeting could have occurred, but it doesn't confirm the specifics of this claim[1][3].

In conclusion, while the claim fits within the broader context of allegations against Harvey Weinstein, direct verification requires specific testimony and documentation that are not publicly available in the provided sources. Therefore, the claim cannot be definitively confirmed or denied based on the information available.

Citations

Claim

You didn't send him the trash TV package until February of 2007.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim "You didn't send him the trash TV package until February of 2007," we must consider the context and available evidence. This statement appears to be part of a specific timeline concerning the submission of a project package, which could be verified through email records or other documentation.

### Claim Evaluation

1. **Contextual Understanding**: The claim is about a specific event (sending a "trash TV package") that occurred in February 2007. Without additional context or documentation, it's challenging to verify this claim directly.

2. **Evidence Required**: To validate this claim, one would need access to email records, project logs, or other documentation that confirms the date of submission. These records would serve as primary evidence to support or refute the claim.

3. **Investigation Approach**:
– **Email Records**: Checking email archives for communications related to the project package could provide direct evidence of when the package was sent.
– **Project Logs**: If project logs or management tools were used, these could also document the submission date.
– **Witness Testimony**: Statements from individuals involved in the project could offer additional insights, though these might be subjective.

### Relevance to Broader Discussion

The broader discussion involves concerns about legal strategies and the impact of accusations on individuals like Justin Baldoni and Harvey Weinstein. While this specific claim does not directly relate to these figures or their cases, it highlights the importance of verifying timelines and events in legal and investigative contexts.

### Conclusion

Without access to specific documentation or records, it is not possible to definitively validate the claim about sending the "trash TV package" in February 2007. Verification would require examining relevant project documentation or communication records.

### Additional Considerations

– **Legal Strategies and Evidence**: In legal contexts, claims are often evaluated based on evidence and documentation. Attorney Gloria Allred's strategies, as mentioned, involve leveraging legal tools like nondisclosure agreements, which can be controversial but are part of legal practice[1][3].
– **Impact of Accusations**: The discussion around false accusations and their impact underscores the need for thorough investigation and evidence-based decision-making in legal proceedings.

In summary, while the claim about the "trash TV package" can be investigated through documentation, the broader discussion emphasizes the importance of evidence and careful legal strategies in addressing serious allegations.

Citations

Claim

In 2007, Michael White was still alive.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that Michael White, the producer, was still alive in 2007, we need to check the date of his death. According to reliable sources, Michael White passed away on March 7, 2016, at the age of 80[3][5]. Therefore, the claim that he was alive in 2007 is **true**.

### Evidence and Verification

1. **Date of Death**: Michael White died on March 7, 2016[3][5].
2. **Age at Death**: He was 80 years old at the time of his death, which means he was born in 1936[3][5].
3. **Verification of Claim**: Since he died in 2016, it is confirmed that Michael White was indeed alive in 2007.

### Conclusion

Based on the information available from trustworthy sources, the claim that Michael White was still alive in 2007 is **verified**. He lived until March 7, 2016, which confirms his presence in 2007.

Citations

Claim

She pitched the TV idea to many others besides Harvey Weinstein.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "She Pitched the TV Idea to Many Others Besides Harvey Weinstein"

To assess the validity of the claim that the individual pitched her TV idea to multiple people besides Harvey Weinstein, we need to consider available evidence and context. The claim itself is based on a statement made during a discussion, likely from a legal or investigative context, as suggested by the transcript in [2]. Here's a breakdown of how to evaluate this claim:

### 1. **Contextual Background**
The transcript from [2] indicates that the individual in question had developed a TV concept called "trash TV" and was seeking to pitch it to various industry professionals. The mention of Harvey Weinstein is significant because he was a prominent figure in the film industry, making him a plausible target for pitching such ideas.

### 2. **Evidence of Pitching to Others**
The transcript suggests that the individual did indeed pitch the idea to multiple people, stating, "I pitched it to many others. I met with a lot of people about trash TV." This claim is supported by the individual's testimony, which mentions interactions with other producers and industry figures.

### 3. **Verification Through Communication Records or Interviews**
To further validate the claim, one would need access to communication records (e.g., emails, meeting notes) or interviews with other individuals who were allegedly pitched the idea. However, such specific evidence is not provided in the available sources.

### 4. **Relevance to Legal Discussions**
The context in which this claim is discussed involves legal strategies and controversies surrounding high-profile cases, such as those involving Harvey Weinstein. Attorney Gloria Allred's practices, particularly regarding nondisclosure agreements, have been scrutinized in similar contexts [1][3]. However, the claim about pitching the TV idea does not directly relate to Allred's legal strategies but rather to the individual's actions and interactions within the industry.

### Conclusion
Based on the available information, the claim that the individual pitched her TV idea to many others besides Harvey Weinstein appears to be supported by her own testimony. However, without additional evidence such as communication records or corroborating statements from other parties, the claim remains largely anecdotal. In legal or investigative contexts, such claims would typically require further verification to be considered reliable.

### Recommendations for Further Verification
– **Obtain Communication Records**: Access to emails, meeting notes, or other communication records could provide concrete evidence of interactions with multiple industry professionals.
– **Conduct Interviews**: Interviews with other individuals who were allegedly pitched the idea could offer corroborating testimony.
– **Review Industry Networks**: An examination of the individual's professional network and industry connections could help establish the plausibility of these interactions.

Citations

Claim

It costs $28 to provide an ultrasound to a woman in crisis.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "It costs $28 to provide an ultrasound to a woman in crisis."

To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine the operational costs associated with providing ultrasounds, particularly by organizations like Preborn, which offer such services to women in crisis.

### Preborn's Ultrasound Costs

Preborn is a pro-life organization that provides free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies. According to their fundraising materials, a donation of $140 can cover the cost of providing ultrasounds for five women[1][5]. This implies that the cost per ultrasound session is approximately $28 per woman ($140 divided by 5).

However, Preborn's own statements indicate that these figures are estimates and not guaranteed, based on historical data and average costs[1][5]. This suggests that actual costs might vary depending on several factors, including location, equipment, and personnel expenses.

### General Ultrasound Costs

In general, the cost of an ultrasound can vary significantly depending on the type of ultrasound, location, and whether it is covered by insurance. For uninsured individuals, costs can range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars[3]. However, these figures are not directly comparable to the specific context of crisis pregnancy centers like Preborn, which often rely on donations to provide free services.

### Conclusion

While Preborn's estimates suggest that $28 could be a plausible cost per ultrasound session in their context, this figure is not universally applicable and may not reflect the actual operational costs of providing ultrasounds in all settings. The claim appears to be based on Preborn's fundraising model rather than a comprehensive analysis of ultrasound costs across different providers.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

1. **Review Financial Reports**: Obtain detailed financial reports from Preborn or similar organizations to understand their operational costs and how they allocate funds for ultrasounds.
2. **Consult Healthcare Providers**: Reach out to healthcare providers or medical facilities that offer ultrasounds to gather more information on the typical costs involved.
3. **Consider Contextual Factors**: Account for variables such as location, equipment, and staffing costs when evaluating the cost of providing ultrasounds in different settings.

In summary, while the claim that it costs $28 to provide an ultrasound to a woman in crisis may align with Preborn's fundraising estimates, it is essential to consider broader contextual factors and verify these costs through multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!