I've started a new thread for this because I think the previous threads didn't adequately cover the possible motives.

In this very interesting piece, we see how Weinstein's behavior has been an open secret for decades. So why is the story only now making headlines? The author notes that Weinstein's film business hasn't been as successful, financially or critically, in the past few years; plus he is old and tired-looking. Then she decides that it's mostly because of feminism.

Well ... I don't doubt that feminism is a factor. I also think it's a factor that Ronan Farrow has made it his life's mission to expose pedos and abusers, and his New Yorker article was going to come out anyway, whether the NYT did a story or not.

However, that only compels the NYT to cover the story. It doesn't require a whole team, or months of their own research. In this previous thread, @Are_we_sure correctly observed that the NYT went far, far beyond the minimum here. (I don't care if you don't like @Are_we_sure. On this point he is correct.)

So why? I think this might be an important moment in the overall bring-down-the-pedos struggle.

We know that the senior staff at the NYT have a mandate to protect the deep state. They were chosen because of their pro-pedo, pro-abuse outlook; they excuse every insane thing the Clintons do, and commission pieces normalizing pedophilia. We also know that Harvey Weinstein is incredibly well connected, and still very powerful even if his films have slumped a bit.

I think this story sends a message to the entire pedo/abuser/deep state network. We know that they number in the tens of thousands. They include senior people at NASA and the CDC, state and municipal officials, ambassadors, and on and on. I think that many of these people hoped, back in the spring and summer, that somehow Mueller and the Russian thing would bring Trump down. But it hasn't, and won't. Now the NFL fiasco has proved, once again, that Trump has a very broad base of support. So this "struggle in the shadows" is going to go on for a good long while yet. Years.

I think the NYT decided it was time to impose a little bit of discipline on their rowdy crew of child rapists. I think they're making an example of Mr. Weinstein.

This is someone who donates millions to the Democrats, and crushes even semi-famous people who cross him. And he probably hasn't murdered anyone, or staged bizarre Satanic torture rituals in a basement somewhere; my impression is that he's just an asshole who doesn't care if a girl is actually 18 yet when he hits on her (and won't take no for an answer). Not that that's okay, it's just kind of small time by the standards we have learned to apply in Washington DC.

All this makes him an excellent example, a highly useful teaching tool in preparing for the next few years of chaos. This is a message to all those mid-level managers, sheriffs, lower court justices, and so on, who got promoted because they belong to the Royal Order of Jesters and have an ugly hobby. NOBODY is safe now. You CAN be sacrificed, and you will be sacrificed the moment you become more trouble than you're worth.

We'll know more as the story unfolds. Weinstein will try to kill it, to apologize and excuse and bluster and so on. But I'm guessing the NYT calculated the cost of standing up to him in advance, as did the New Yorker. If this story drags on through Christmas, then I think that means I'm right. They didn't do this because they wanted to; they did it because the continued existence of Trump, plus the citizen-investigator army, made it necessary.

And that is actually very good news for our side. Pat yourselves on the back, folks, and put a "W" in today's box scores.