Posted by on December 6, 2017 10:55 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories: Bob Weinstein Business Economy Economy of the United States Entertainment Finance Harvey Weinstein Hedge fund money New York Times None Paul Tudor Jones sex crimes The Weinstein Company Wall Street Journal Weinstein

Late last night the New York Times published a comprehensive article delving into the powerful support network of Harvey Weinstein, a network on which he apparently relied to help cover up decades of sexual assaults.  Among the allies discussed in the article was none other than legendary hedge fund investor, and former Weinstein & Co. board member, Paul Tudor Jones. 

But, unlike other Weinstein enablers who jumped ship when the tales of his monstrous behavior went public, Jones instead decided to pen an email expressing his support of the disgraced Hollywood executive saying “the good news is, this will go away sooner than you think and it will be forgotten!” just before signing “I love you.”

Privately, at least one expressed loyalty. On Oct. 7, the day before he was ousted from his own company, Mr. Weinstein received an email from the investor Paul Tudor Jones.


“I love you,” he wrote, while detailing the steps Mr. Weinstein should take to rehabilitate his image. Mr. Jones told The Times that he condemned Mr. Weinstein’s alleged misconduct and wanted to encourage him to get help. “Focus on the future as America loves a great comeback story,” he wrote to the movie producer.


He finished: “The good news is, this will go away sooner than you think and it will be forgotten!”


Alas, in hindsight, Jones has seemingly now come to the conclusion that offering up his unwavering support for a man who has been exposed as an horrific sexual assaulter might have been a bad idea…though only after some backlash from the folks who work for him.  Here’s more from the Wall Street Journal:

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones took the unusual step of explaining his relationship with Harvey Weinstein, after a report indicated that Mr. Jones supported the disgraced Hollywood mogul as sexual harassment allegations unfolded earlier this year.


In a letter to employees Wednesday, Mr. Jones wrote: “Please also understand that I first learned about the revelations about Harvey only as they began to be reported in the media. They were 100% a surprise to me.”


Mr. Jones, 63 years old, referred to Mr. Weinstein’s actions as “horribly wrong” and described the entertainment executive as “a friend I believed too long and defended too long,” according to the letter, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.


“Perhaps in your own life you have faced a similar dilemma—how to react to a friend who is revealed to be someone other than the person you believed him or her to be,” Mr. Jones wrote.

As you may recall, back in October Jones was the only Weinstein & Co. board member, aside from Harvey himself, who refused to sign a statement that ordered an independent investigation into allegations made against the firm’s co-founder.  Per Deadline:

A statement released by the TWC board earlier today said that the company has ordered an independent investigation into the allegations against its co-founder and co-chairman. While the members endorsed Weinstein’s “already-announced decision to take an indefinite leave of absence,” they stopped short of terminating the controversial co-chairman.


The statement was signed by four of the nine board members, “constituting a majority of the Board,” per the company — Bob Weinstein, Tarak Ben Ammar, Lance Maerov and Richard Koenigsberg. Of the other five, three have resigned. One of the remaining two, Paul Tudor Jones, opted not to sign the statement; the other is Harvey Weinstein.

Of course, Jones’ argument that he was “100% surprised” by the allegations against Harvey would seem unlikely given that it has since been revealed that his transgressions were well known across Hollywood.  Moreover, as a board member it would only seem logical that Jones would have had some knowledge of all the legal settlements his firm was constantly paying out to protect it’s co-chairman. All of which begs the logical question of what dirt, if any, Harvey had on Jones that demanded such steadfast loyalty?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *