David Glasser

David Glasser, president of The Weinstein Company, becomes a consequential but carefully bounded source as The New York Times prepares to publish its investigation of Harvey Weinstein. The reporting shows him receiving information through two different channels: Lance Maerov relays what Megan Twohey has told him, and, during an emergency board call, David Boies outlines the scale of Weinstein’s settlements. Glasser’s later confirmation helps the reporters verify the figure, while his willingness to be used anonymously marks the difference between supplying information and making a public statement.

Position Inside the Company

Glasser is identified as The Weinstein Company’s president, placing him among the senior executives whose response mattered as the investigation threatened the company. The account does not describe him as one of the independent board members charged with oversight, nor does it establish that he had previously investigated Weinstein’s treatment of women. His role in these scenes is more specific: he is an executive who receives information about the coming story and can give reporters an account of what the company’s board has been told.

That distinction matters in a company where knowledge and responsibility were unevenly distributed. Maerov, one of the independent directors, was trying to use a contract renewal to examine Weinstein’s personnel file; Weinstein refused access, with Boies offering to review the file himself. The company’s resulting contract provisions addressed potential financial liability, including escalating penalties for settlements, rather than guaranteeing that women would not be harassed. Glasser’s scenes unfold against that governance failure, but the evidence does not show him designing those provisions or taking part in Maerov’s review. His documented contribution is to disclose what he heard at the board level when the Times reporting was nearly complete.

Information Reaches the President

In an earlier encounter, Maerov broke a promise to Twohey after speaking with her. He called Glasser and Bob Weinstein and relayed what Twohey had told him. The account presents this disclosure as part of Maerov’s continuing effort to protect The Weinstein Company, even after he had spoken with a reporter. It does not specify what Glasser said in response, or establish that he passed the information onward. The episode nevertheless places him inside the company’s flow of advance information about the reporting, before the public story appeared.

The more consequential exchange came after an emergency board conference call. On Tuesday night, Maerov had insisted on bringing the board together because Weinstein had retained lawyers and Lanny Davis’s firm to address a story the board had not known about. Boies told the participants that the Times story was coming and would be damaging to the company. He described eight to twelve settlements with women, while warning that the actual number might be higher. Glasser was present for the call; the following morning, he would tell Twohey that he had been shocked by what he heard.

The Call Before Publication

On Wednesday, October 4, Twohey called Glasser in California before dawn. He answered sounding sleep-deprived and frazzled. Twohey explained that she wanted other executives to have a fair opportunity to respond to the Times story. His account confirmed that the company had held an emergency board meeting and that Boies had outlined the material the newspaper was preparing to publish. When Twohey asked what had surprised him most, she specifically tested whether the board had heard the settlement figure. Glasser confirmed that it had: eight to twelve, possibly more.

The confirmation strengthened a central finding at a moment when Weinstein’s team had already challenged the reporters’ account and complained about the time allowed for a response. Glasser did not, in this exchange, offer a named public position on Weinstein’s conduct. Instead, he agreed that Twohey could use him as a source for the settlement figure without identifying him. She also told him that the Times would be interested in including his perspective if he later chose to speak on the record. The distinction between those two possibilities remained explicit: anonymous sourcing was agreed to; an on-the-record account was left open.

Narrative Role and Limits

Glasser’s role is defined less by a recorded public intervention than by a sequence of disclosures at a crisis point. First, Maerov brings him information obtained from Twohey. Then the board hears from Boies what the newspaper is about to report. Finally, Glasser confirms the number of settlements to Twohey, giving the journalists an additional source for a sensitive factual claim. Each step moves information closer to publication, but the account does not show Glasser becoming a public critic of Weinstein or explaining what he did with the information after the call.

That restraint is important to the portrait. His reported shock conveys a response to the board’s account, but it does not by itself establish when he first knew of the settlements, what he understood about earlier complaints, or what action he took inside the company. The evidence supports a narrower significance: at a moment when Weinstein’s representatives were trying to manage the response and the publication deadline was passing, the company president verified that the board had been told of multiple settlements and allowed the figure to be attributed to an unnamed source. His contribution helped the reporting proceed without turning him, in the available account, into a named public witness.