Russell Simmons Sues HBO Over Sexual Assault Doc He Claims 'Suppressed' Evidence In His Favor
Russell Simmons has filed a lawsuit against HBO and the filmmakers behind their 2020 On The Record documentary for defamation, as it explores the sexual assault and misconduct allegations leveled against him by several women over the last decade. Within the suit obtained by Variety, Simmons' attorney, Imran Ansari, states that the film 'disregarded and/or suppressed' evidence supporting the former music executive's claims of innocence.
'Despite voluminous support for Mr. Simmons in the form of credible information, persuasive evidence, witness statements, and calls for further investigation by notable members of the media, politics, and the civil rights movement, the defendants simply disregarded it, and released, and continue to re-release globally, a film that tremendously disparaged and damaged Mr. Simmons with salacious and defamatory accusations that he vehemently denies,' Ansari and co-counsel Carla DiMare said in a written statement.
'Defendants were requested to review this evidence and information by multiple luminaries in media and politics, including but not limited to, civil rights leaders and members of Congress, and other high-profile black leaders; and board members within the Defendant corporation(s) itself,' Ansari added to the filing.
The Bali resident is seeking the 'immediate removal' of the documentary from HBO's platforms, as well as at least $20 million in damages.
In all, more than 20 women have accused the Def Jam figurehead of sexual assault, some of which were covered within the HBO doc.
More from VIBE.com
Eminem Sues Meta For $109 Million - But Why?
Smokey Robinson Accused Of Sexual Assault, Hostile Work Environment From Past Employees
Misa Hylton Insists She Never Lost A "Real" Friend Amid Mary J. Blige Lawsuit
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
27 minutes ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
Patrick Schwarzenegger is glad that viewers' loathing for Saxon on ‘White Lotus' evolved into love
Patrick Schwarzenegger is still coming off the 'whirlwind of emotions' that was the making of 'The White Lotus' Season 3. The actor, who is taking part in a new campaign for Venmo with costar Aimee Lou Wood, spoke to CNN recently about how his perspective has changed since the release of the show, which saw his character Saxon go from loathsome finance bro to a vulnerable young man who realized he has a lot to learn. 'It was definitely a learning experience for me, being on this show,' Schwarzenegger said, adding that the viewership and engaged fandom – famous for its memes and fan theories -– was an experience 'that I've been never been part of.' As for his character – a 'grandiose alpha male that comes in grabbing his crotch and walking around naked,' in Schwarzenegger's words – he acknowledged that there were indeed some parallels between himself and who he portrayed, particularly in how they each were received by the viewing public over the course of the season. 'I think people did not like the character, and what happened was, a lot of people did not know who I was,' he said. '(They would) come up with their preconceived ideas of who I am or how I got the role' based, of course, on his famous last name. As the Mike White-created show went on, viewers learned that there was a lot more to Saxon than met the eye, and it was delivered via Schwarzenegger's capable acting chops – family name notwithstanding. 'It's a mistake to think you know a character that's in a Mike White show on day 1, or on week 2 or week 3,' he shared. Schwarzenegger called the show's creator 'very smart' in how he writes his characters, and 'how they change.' Or don't. 'It was fun for me to watch the hysteria of it all and how it evolved over time,' he said. And while he wasn't surprised that viewers received his character rather coolly at first, he was moved by how much they eventually warmed up to him. 'But I also did not know to what extent people were going to like Saxon,' he said. 'It was a very big roller coaster ride of people despising him to (him) becoming one of the most liked and enjoyed characters by the end, because he had a place to go to.' The same could be said of Schwarzenegger himself, who is slated to appear opposite Al Pacino in the feature 'Billy Knight,' according to his IMDb page. (The project is in post-production with no public release date set). The actor's famous father, however, might have some thoughts on any further on-screen nudity. In their conversation for Variety's 'Actors on Actors,' he once again sounded off on the topic spurred by Saxon's nude scene in the 'White Lotus' season 3 premiere, but this time, in a lovingly embarrassing that way only a father could. 'I'm watching your show, and I'm watching your butt sticking out there, and all of a sudden, I see the weenie,' the elder Schwarzenegger said. His son – and the Internet – howled with laughter. Rollercoaster, indeed.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
