Hillary Clinton has refused to denounce her sexual predator husband, former president Bill Clinton, and she has now proved that he’s not a special case. By refusing to denounce sexual deviant Harvey Weinstein, a long-time friend and big-money donor to her political campaigns, Hillary’s hypocrisy has now become legendary and will preserve her name in infamy for generations.
Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee went public with the very reasonable suggestion that Democrats and Hillary Clinton should return hundreds of thousands of dollars donated by Weinstein over the years.
Seems perfectly reasonable, especially considering the way Hillary Clinton approached Donald Trump’s alleged scandals during the campaign.
So what was Hillary’s response to the Harvey Weinstein scandal? She has refused to denounce her donor, long-term friend and former neighbor. And she has refused to return the money.
The Daily Beast reports: Weinstein’s growing scandal represents yet another instance of liberal hypocrisy on issues liberals relentlessly criticize conservatives on. After all, conservatives were allegedly responsible for a War on Women, but yet again we have a liberal man accused of privately mounting his own War on Women, and hiding in part behind his public support of feminist causes and candidates to do so. Conservatives will be quick to point out it’s not the first time, and they’d be right. (Weinstein is even blaming a right-wing conspiracy. Sound familiar?)
For instance, as I wrote years ago, long before these latest allegations surfaced, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most prominent defenders of filmmaker Roman Polanski who admitted raping a young girl. Apparently, that wasn’t an important enough detail to matter to Weinstein because Polanski makes good films, so the mogul was a key force behind a petition supporting the director’s release after being taken into custody again in Switzerland in 2009.
Now I want you to take a moment and consider what the reaction would be from prominent progressives if any of the country’s leading conservative donors (The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, take your pick) actively defended an admitted pedophile. I have a feeling the protests and think pieces would never end—at least not until candidates backed by said donors returned money from them.
You know, sort of like the Republican National Committee is asking recipients of donations from Weinstein to do. (Some Democratic elected officials, among them Sen. Elizabeth Warren, had begun donating contributions from Weinstein to charitable causes at the time this piece was filed.)
That means that those who were outraged by the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump bragged about groping women should be outraged when a powerful Democratic donor is alleged to have engaged in similar, or at the very least adjacent, behavior—regardless of whether he’s funded women candidates or not (or made movies we like.)