GAVIN NEWSOM’S Wife Flabbergasted After Being Demanded To Do X-Rated Thing

The trial of Harvey Weinstein proceeded on Tuesday with testimony from Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Defense lawyer Mark Werksman had some disturbing questions for Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

SPECIAL: Get Your FREE Red Trump 2024 Hat Here

The wife of California Governor Gavin reenact was plainly disgusted when asked to explain how she faked an orgasm while testifying in Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse hearing.

Faked Orgasm?

The first lady of California objected when defense lawyer  Mark Werksman questioned how she “expressed her enjoyment” during the alleged 2005 event at the Peninsula resort in Beverly Hills when Weinstein allegedly raped her.

Siebel Newsom, obviously angry, remarked that this was not a movie and she did not manufacture an orgasmic experience.

Siebel Newsom, also known in court as Jane Doe 4, gave testimony on Monday that her visit with Harvey Weinstein was meant to be a business meeting but swiftly evolved into something different when Weinstein donned a robe and began to “subvert” and “threaten” her.

She said Weinstein inserted his fingers and his “deformed” penis into her private parts.

She also stated that she produced “pleasure noises” when she placed her hand on Weinstein’s genitals in an attempt to induce him to ejaculate.

This Tuesday, Werksman interrogated Siebel Newsom over why she pretended to have an orgasm with Weinstein after he allegedly raped her.

The first lady, who was clearly upset, testified that she faked her climax so that Weinstein would be “done.”

Siebel Newsom replied in tears that she was making sounds to encourage him to finish. And said he had raped her already.

When Werksman bombarded Siebel Newsom with questions about her earlier testimony on the alleged rape, she responded that what he was doing to her was identical to what Weinstein had done to her.

Why Did They Keep in Touch?

Werksman also questioned Siebel Newsom about hundreds of emails she sent to Weinstein following the alleged sexual assault, including emails asking for support for Gavin Newsom’s San Francisco mayoral election.

The emails, spanning between 2006 and 2008, were shown to the jury and contained Siebel Newsom’s request for meetings with Harvey Weinstein.

In one email dated March 2, 2007, almost 18 months following the alleged sexual assault, Siebel Newsom thanked Weinstein for adding her and 2 others to the invite list for an Oscars celebration.

In the email, Siebel Newsom remarked that they had so much fun.

When asked why she continued to speak with the man she said had viciously assaulted her, Siebel Newsom responded that she was simply “hustling.”

Werksman demanded clarity as to whether she was only hustling the man who assaulted her.

Siebel Newsom was noticeably rattled by Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez’s line of questioning.

Martinez questioned whether she intended to engage in sexual activity when she traveled to the Peninsula.

“No!” Siebel Newsom wailed and wept inconsolably.

Siebel Newsom responded in the affirmative when asked if she attempted to reject Harvey Weinstein verbally and physically. She claimed to have done so by pushing her legs together. And that she did everything she could to escape.

Siebel Newsom proceeded to sob audibly as she stepped out of the courtroom after being dismissed from the witness stand.

Before Siebel Newsom testified on Tuesday, Deputy District Attorney Paul Thompson informed Judge Lisa Lench that they had no plans to summon Jane Doe #5 to the stand.

Two charges of forceful sexual assault and two counts of oral sexual contact were included in Jane Doe 5’s original indictment.

Lench granted the defense’s motion to dismiss these allegations, meaning Weinstein now faces seven charges regarding Siebel Newsom and three additional women who have previously testified.

From 2004 to 2013, Weinstein, already serving a 23-year term for rape and sexual assault in New York, is accused of sexually abusing four women in Los Angeles. If he is found guilty of all charges, he faces a maximum of 65 years to life in jail. The trial was set to resume on Wednesday.

This article appeared in NewsHouse and has been published here with permission.

Recent