By JENNIFER PELTZ and MICHAEL R. SISAK

NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein ’s lawyers got their turn Thursday to question a woman who alleges the one-time Hollywood heavyweight held her down and forced oral sex on her nearly two decades ago.

Miriam Haley, testifying for a third day at Weinstein’s rape retrial, was grilled about details of her recollections — such as exactly how she once propped open an apartment building door — and the bigger picture of her story.

Defense lawyer Jennifer Bonjean underscored that Haley, who was then looking for entertainment production work, stayed in touch with Weinstein despite feeling humiliated when he complimented her legs and asked for a massage at a meeting a few months before the alleged 2006 assault.

“You understood these were sexual overtures?” Bonjean asked.

Haley said she did.

“You rebuffed them, and he still gave you his phone number, right?”

“Yes,” said Haley, who got a short gig on the Weinstein-produced “Project Runway” shortly after that meeting, which happened in his company’s hotel suite during the 2006 Cannes Film Festival.

Haley has repeatedly testified that she was pursuing only job opportunities, nothing else, from Weinstein.

Bonjean also sparred with the witness over her decision to get a lawyer and hold a press conference airing her allegations as the #MeToo movement exploded in October 2017, fueled by other women’s claims that the Oscar-winning producer had sexually assaulted or harassed them.

Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty and denies sexually assaulting anyone. His lawyers argue that all of his accusers consented to sexual encounters in hopes of getting work in show business.

Haley, who has also gone by the name Mimi Haleyi, is the first of three accusers expected to testify at the retrial. She is reprising and adding some new details to testimony that led to Weinstein’s since-overturned 2020 conviction.

She testified Wednesday that Weinstein assaulted her after inviting her to his apartment for what she expected to be a friendly, professional meeting. She said he pushed her onto a bed, ignoring her pleas of: “No, no — it’s not going to happen.”

She and two friends testified that she told them soon after that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her.

Haley testified that she took a prearranged flight to Los Angeles on Weinstein’s dime the next day, and a few weeks later agreed to meet him at a Manhattan hotel. She said she had expected to talk in the lobby, but was instead directed to his room, where she says she had unwanted, but not forced, sex with him.

Even after that, Haley testified, she kept in touch, sometimes sending emails signed “Lots of love” to Weinstein and his assistant. She said that she was still trying to capitalize professionally on knowing Weinstein and that she “suppressed a lot of things” to cope with them.

Bonjean pointed out Thursday that when Haley went public in 2017, she didn’t mention her subsequent sexual encounter with Weinstein, nor their continued contact.

“You told the press only part of the story, correct?” Bonjean asked.

“I told the part that was relevant to what I was trying to share,” Haley said.

She denied Bonjean’s suggestion that she spoke out in hopes of suing Weinstein, though she later sued and got a roughly $475,000 settlement.

Focusing on the Cannes meeting, Bonjean pressed Haley on what to make of the fact that she had secured a meeting with a top producer while she had limited experience herself.

“So, as somebody in my position, I should have turned it down, is what you’re saying?” Haley shot back.

“I’m not saying you should have done anything,” Bonjean replied.

She will step away from Weinstein’s defense team to attend to another trial after she finishes questioning Haley, who is due back on the stand Friday.

Weinstein’s retrial includes charges related to Haley and another accuser from the original trial, Jessica Mann, who alleges Weinstein raped her in 2013. He’s also being tried, for the first time, for allegedly forcing oral sex on former model Kaja Sokola in 2006.

Mann and Sokola also are expected to testify.

The Associated Press generally does not name people who allege they’ve been sexually assaulted unless they give permission for their names to be used. Haley, Mann and Sokola have done so.

State environmental regulators have fined St. Paul’s Regions Hospital for improperly disposing of infectious medical waste at an east metro trash facility in 2024.

On several occasions last year, the hospital put blood-contaminated syringes, plastic bags, suction cannisters and laboratory collection tubes in the standard municipal waste system, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy in Newport contacted state environmental regulators when it received the items. The facility had to hire a contractor to separate the waste from other garbage and send it to a proper disposal site, officials said.

Regions Hospital operator HealthPartners confirmed the Newport facility received the waste.

The state fined Regions Hospital $100,000 for improperly disposing of the medical waste and ordered a series of corrective actions, which officials and HealthPartners said the hospital completed.

“We’re committed to ensuring infectious medical waste is disposed of properly,” HealthPartners said in a statement. “We took immediate action last year and continue to partner with Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy to improve sorting and disposal practices.”

Hospitals are supposed to send medical waste to a specially permitted disposal site. The restrictions are aimed at protecting public health and the environment.

Related Articles

St. Paul police: 2nd grader said he brought gun to school to show friends

Metro State University lockdown prompted by man firing shots at his mother

3 hurt in shooting in St. Paul apartment; police arrest 1 of the injured

Nearly 200 employees to be laid off in St. Paul as WestRock recycling plant closes

St. Paul, MN Wild trim Xcel Center’s state request from $400M to $50M

Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Tommy Tuberville recently introduced the Abolish TSA Act of 2025, effectively calling for the privatization of airport security.

Against the backdrop of DOGE and the elimination of longstanding institutions like the Department of Education and the U.S. Postal Service, it appears that if ever there was a time to get rid of the Transportation Security Administration, this is it.

Doing away with the TSA does not mean doing away with airport security, of course. The TSA oversees a workforce of over 60,000 people who screen on average 2.5 million people every day at federalized airports to keep the air system safe. They are funded in part by the September 11th Security Fee. What makes such a task so daunting is that nearly every passenger that the TSA encounters is harmless. Only a few bad actors every year pose any risk to the air system. They are well camouflaged among the largely benign pool of air travelers.

Adding to the complexity is that air travelers are apt to openly criticize the TSA for its efforts to protect the air system, claiming it is more theater than substance. Yet if you asked these people how security operations could be improved, they can offer no better solutions to what the TSA offers, except perhaps less screening.

There is a nugget of truth to what they are saying. Over-screening is indeed ubiquitous. Yet there is more to airport security than intercepting 10-ounce bottles of shampoo and 6-ounce tubes of toothpaste at checkpoints. It is about maintaining a complex network of security layers, many of which are invisible to flyers, which collectively provide a nearly impenetrable shield designed to keep bad actors from compromising the air-travel system.

The TSA relies heavily on technologies, the most visible of which are full body scanners and detection of threats in carry-on bags. The challenge with such technologies is that they are slow, creating bottlenecks at airport security checkpoints, which are viewed as an inconvenience rather than enhanced security.

People, not threat items, pose the biggest risk to the air system. That is why research was needed to create a program like TSA PreCheck, which defined a new paradigm for improving air system security while reducing passenger inconvenience. The foundation for this program is risk-based security, which aligns passenger risk with security procedure requirements. In essence, the more that the TSA knows about travelers, the better security resources can be aligned with their risk. Since most travelers pose little risk to the air system, this translates into an expedited screening experience available via TSA PreCheck dedicated lanes.

The most recent advance in reducing security resources and screening for most travelers is the use of biometrics like facial recognition to authenticate passenger identity. Ensuring that all travelers are who they claim to be is critical to keeping bad actors from infiltrating the air system. The introduction of Credential Authenticate Technology with facial recognition, labeled CAT-2, is a quantum leap forward to separate the mostly benign travelers from the sprinkling of bad actors.

Several lawmakers believe that facial recognition is a violation of personal privacy and civil liberties. But if you look at the social media accounts of those who criticize facial recognition, you will find more personal privacy violations there than anything occurring at airport security checkpoints.

So why is facial recognition so important? For one, it offers a pathway to an expanded version of TSA Precheck, which will provide certain travelers the opportunity to pass through airport security checkpoints like airline crew members. Many travelers would be willing to pay for this privilege and undergo the necessary background screening to qualify for such convenience. Elected officials may also be eligible, including those who object to its use.

Facial recognition would also be an important enhancement for Screening at Speed, permitting flyers to be screened in real-time. Investments by the TSA in such a futuristic security screening model is the next quantum leap forward to improve security while minimizing passenger inconvenience.

Lee says that airlines should provide their own security. Such a hodge-podge of protocols would be far less secure than what the TSA currently provides. Privatizing airport security is an option, which the TSA already offers through its Screening Partnership Program. However, the TSA, not the private-sector companies, set security standards and performance benchmarks.

On any given day, at any given airport, the TSA may not execute its security tactics in the optimal manner. What it does get right are its security strategies, which work toward giving flyers what they want and deserve: a seamless process that protects them and the air system in the most nonintrusive way. That is why the TSA is needed today, and for the foreseeable future.

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He has researched risk-based aviation security for more than 25 years, providing the technical foundations for TSA PreCheck. This piece was originally published by The Hill.

Your addictive doomscrolling on X, TikTok or Instagram may also be the latest nexus for millions of dollars in secret political corruption.

Over the last month, the problem has come into sharp relief. Newly surfaced documents show that more than 500 social media creators were part of a covert electioneering effort by Democratic donors to shape the presidential election in favor of Kamala Harris.

Payments went to party members with online followings but also to non-political influencers — people known for comedy posts, travel vlogs or cooking YouTubes — in exchange for “positive, specific pro-Kamala content” meant to create the appearance of a groundswell of support for the former vice president.

Meanwhile, a similar pay-to-post effort among conservative influencers publicly unraveled. The goal was to publish messages in opposition to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to remove sugary soda beverages from eligible SNAP food stamp benefits.

Influencers were allegedly offered money to denounce soda restrictions as “an overreach that unfairly targets consumer choice” and encouraged to post pictures of President Donald Trump enjoying Coca-Cola products. After right-leaning reporter Nick Sortor pointed out the near-identical messages on several prominent accounts, posts came down and at least one of the influencers apologized: “That was dumb of me. Massive egg on my face. In all seriousness, it won’t happen again.”

In both schemes, on the left and the right, those creating the content made little to no effort to disclose that payments could be involved. For ordinary users stumbling on the posts and videos, what they saw would have seemed entirely organic.

In the influencers’ defense, they didn’t break any rules — because none exist.

We used to demand minimal levels of transparency for paid endorsements. In the 1970s, the U.S. enacted a series of reforms requiring new disclosures for those seeking to shape elections. Television, radio and print ads for political campaigns must specify the sponsors, and billboards or pamphlets sent by mail also feature small-print reminders of the groups responsible.

Social media, however, is the Wild West of advocacy. Although influencers are generally required by the Federal Trade Commission to disclose paid endorsements for products, politics are a different matter. Most election-related communications fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. But the FEC commissioners debated the issue without resolving the problem. A proposal floated in December 2023 to enact basic rules for influencers made no headway.

There was a momentary push in 2017 for stricter social media disclosures in the political realm. The discovery of foreign influence campaigns aimed at the 2016 presidential election set off alarm bells. As a result, the major tech platforms began working to track and close so-called sock puppet accounts operated by the Russian and Chinese government. Yet few reforms were institutionalized, and as more and more Americans get their news from social media, the problem remains largely unchecked.

That has left the entire social media landscape vulnerable to hidden manipulation, where money from interest groups or corporations or even rich individuals can silently shape what appears to be authentic discourse. This corrosion of reality undermines the very foundation of democratic deliberation.

Democracy requires a minimal level of shared facts and good-faith engagement. Secret payments in support of candidates or causes destroy both, corrupting the “marketplace of ideas,” where the best arguments are supposed to naturally rise to prominence through competition. If genuine public sentiment becomes indistinguishable from manufactured opinion, we lose our collective ability to recognize the truth and make informed decisions. Everything from local zoning decisions to soda bans to presidential elections can be skewed.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously noted that “sunlight is … the best disinfectant.” Transparency in political influencing requires regulatory action. The Federal Election Commission must act and establish clear disclosure requirements for paid political communications on social media. Congress should expand the definition of electioneering and political-payola disclosure to include influencer content. Platforms must implement more robust paid content and disclosure tools.

Most importantly, we as citizens must demand reform. We should support influencers who voluntarily disclose their financial relationships and conflicts of interests, and question those who don’t.

If we fail to address the growing influence of secret money in the digital public square, the risk is dire: We will surrender our collective decision-making ability and our democracy to whoever can afford to purchase the most compelling voices.

Lee Fang is an independent journalist. He publishes an investigative newsletter at leefang.com. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.