Now that Hillary has become an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, the Times is practicing journalism again when the truth is ugly.
From yesterday’s New York Times follow-up on its initial Harvey Weinstein report documenting how his sexula predator ways were enabled and facilitated by Hollywood stars, agents, prominent feminists and progressives and former victims, as Weinstein’s abuse and crimes continued:
Mr. Weinstein was a fund-raiser and informal adviser during Mrs. Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, a guest in her hotel suite when she won and a host of an A-list victory party. He was an early backer of both her presidential bids.
Mr. Weinstein’s political activity — he provided consistent support for Mr. Obama as well — boosted his image as a man with friends in high places and close ties to the country’s leading female politician. It is not clear if rumors of his record of sexual misconduct had ever reached them.
But two prominent women said they warned Mrs. Clinton’s team. In 2016, Lena Dunham, the writer and actress, said she was troubled by the producer’s visible presence during Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run, hosting fund-raisers and appearing at campaign events. She had heard stories, both directly and secondhand from other actresses, about disturbing encounters with him, she said. So in March last year, Ms. Dunham, a vocal Clinton supporter, said she warned the campaign.
Then, the “Girls” creator told the paper, she tried one more time:
With the Democratic National Convention approaching in summer 2016, Ms. Dunham said she also warned Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton who was leading efforts with celebrity campaigners. As far as Ms. Dunham could tell, the campaign had not responded to her concerns about Mr. Weinstein.
What a surprise: Schake and Elrod deny this. But it qualifies as what we call in court an “admission against interest”: surely Dunham is smart enough to know telling the Times this doesn’t make her look like a whistleblower, it makes her look like a callous phony. She has been a vocal advocate for women, but she allowed Harvey Weinstein to continue assaulting and raping actresses less powerful and influential than she, only passing along what she knew to protect the Great Feminist Champion Hillary Clinton.
I have stated before that Hillary had to know about Weinstein as she was accepting his support and hugging him at receptions. Now we know that Dunham knew, and this story confirms that Hillary knew…unless you think Schake wouldn’t pass along Dunham’s warning, or that Clinton’s campaign never would lie to make Hillary seem less despicable than she is, in which case you are, I’m sorry to say, an idiot.
Harvey, Lena, and Hillary.
What awful, awful human beings,
Ethics Alarms 
I seldom get the chance to compliment journalism these days, but that work done by the New York Times was really something.
Agreed.
I don’t know how I feel about this story. Dunham is well known for spinning her own tails and I imagine she might see sharing this story as a way to get rid of the heat she has been taking lately. Still, she has to know how powerful the Clintons are and this type of story can only bring more heat on herself.
I guess we will have to see how it plays out.
Well, hey, if Hillary had to bar rapists from her campaign, we would just have even more of these type of stories coming out about what Bill did with all that free time.
Hah. This Lena Dunham thing supports my initial theory on the Weinstein take-down. It is indicative of the peril the Clinton machine is in in Democratic circles these days. Weinstein would never have been allowed to be taken down if the Clintons were still running things. I still think there’s a movement afoot in Dem circles to drive a stake into the heart of the Clintons to finally clear the stage for someone, anyone, Buehler? else. But now that John Conyers is out of the picture, I don’t see anyone else.
I think it’s also indicative that the Democratic Party is looking to clear the decks to try to take Trump down. As long as they have harassers in their own ranks and among their very prominent supporters they can’t go after Trump just for crude, frat-boy talk that was never meant to be heard publicly and innuendo, or they look like hypocrites. However, once this purge is complete, and the party and its supporters are dominated by women and younger men of color who have grown up on “hush little baby, don’t say a word… ever, your sister is talking,” then they will be in a position to try to topple Trump.
Steve, I think their main problem at this point is more the Clintons who came to dinner, and never left. Or at least that’s what a wing of the party believes. The Hill and Bill Show is a certified two time loser. But they’re still running a major portion, the major portion of the show. They continue to take all the oxygen out of the room. Once Hillary is done sucking money out of her current book tour, she’ll get back to raising money and putting together a new campaign staff. They can’t take on Trump without a viable national candidate.
“…they will be in a position to try to topple Trump.”
I disagree. Oh, Dems might think this will allow them to take down Trump. But the truth is, they cannot defend their own on this topic: they tried, and it did not poll well with ordinary people (not even progressives /snark)
But decades old accusations of non criminal activities take down a POTUS? Especially THIS one? Trump would have to be ashamed into resigning… and I think the odds on that are worse than an asteroid strike on Leap Day.
”my initial theory on the Weinstein take-down.”
It’s a matter of record that “you told us so.”
Honestly, the depths of HRC’s depravity knows no bounds! Fearless Feminist Fighter for The Sisterhood? Hah!!
”Dunham says the Clinton staffer (Schake) appeared to be shocked at her statement and told her she would immediately report it to Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook. (bolds mine)
“Mook told TheNYT that he was never warned about Weinstein.”
I would just LUV to see that smug prick extraordinaire Mook get his gonads guillotined!
“I still think there’s a movement afoot in Dem circles to drive a stake into the heart of the Clintons to finally clear the stage for someone.”
Kinda reminds me of the scene from “Full Metal Jacket” when the platoon was to get punished for every screwup by Vincent D’Onofiro’s Private Leonard “Gomer Pyle” Lawrence.
They lashed him to his bunk and beat him with soap bar filled socks, each private taking one whack.
Lawrence’s friend-n-mentor (Matthew Modine’s Private James T. “Joker” Davis), whacked him once, but then snapped and went full postal.
If that’s one’s demise when one disappoints one’s supporter(s) one time too many, perhaps that’s what’s happening to the Clintonistas now?
There was a time when the very real mortal fear of reprisal deterred anyone from speaking out against them, I reckon that time has passed.
A soap bar filled with socks? How creative!!!
Oops! Misread that. Never mind.
”soap bar filled socks” are the poor man’s blackjack.
I’ve never served but would venture a guess that military soap bars would be more ”Ivory” than ”Camay,” as in, hard as an effin’ rock.
It sure put Private Pyle on the road to perdition.
A sand-filled garden hose may be classified as a deadly weapon, am I right? Could one of those?
“…would venture a guess that military soap bars would be more ”Ivory” than ”Camay,” as in, hard as an effin’ rock.”
Unless you are in the Navy, who (my Army buddies assert) use powdered soap. This bit of effeminate innuendo might, mind you, just might have arisen due to inter service rivalry, and not due to facts in evidence. However, a sock filled with sand would hurt almost as much, so can soap be much different?
One old joke: “why does the Navy used powdered soap? It makes it harder to pick it up in the shower when you drop it…”
My Dear 92 1/2 Father (disabled WWII veteran, Signalman/US Navy-Armed Guard) remembers using bar soap.
There wasn’t much time for none of that there shower hanky-panky at sea.
With limited fresh water they barely let you get wet, a lesson he tried to inculcate to his progeny, with mixed success.
God bless your father for his service, but the reference was to a Vietnam era movie… not that it matters: my post was more in line with wisecracking that fact checking 🙂
Thanks, I’ll pass the blessing along, but which movie?
I thought I’d done seen ’em all, except the ones that cost several rolls of quarters, one at a time…
Full Metal Jacket, the ‘barracks discipline scene’ was what started the discussion.
It really does seem as though the word has gone out that the Clintons are now “fair game”. There has been an awful lot of criticism directed their way, rather suddenly, from people who previously would have fought to the death for them.
I suppose it could just be the usual piling-on, crab-bucket behavior that the left tends to engage in, but the timing of it all feels a little more coordinated than that.
You know…. I wonder…. “Now that Hillary has become an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, the Times is practicing journalism again when the truth is ugly.”
I’d love a machine that would take me to an alternate dimension where Hillary had won, because most of the reason that Hillary has fallen out of favor is because she lost, if instead, she had won, I believe that the entire Progressive and Democratic spin machines would be working 24/7 fighting a losing battle to try to keep Hillary’s PR needle from hitting E. Because of Hillary’s connections with Weinstein et. al, because of HIllary’s history carrying water for Bill, I don’t know if the #metoo movement would have been able to find the oxygen it needed to catch fire.
A significant part of the reason that I think #metoo didn’t happen a decade ago (on top of the fact that Twitter wasn’t a thing) was because Democrats treated the problem like it was something Republican politicians and business leaders did to secretaries, and not something that Democrat politicians, Hollywood, and teachers did to interns, coworkers and kids. If the Democrats had something to protect, and administration to bolster, I really don’t think they’d be set up to have the introspection that it took to allow and foster this newfound sense of accountability that Democrats have found over the last three months.
“But Jeff!” One might decry, “Democrats have been on the side of women for decades, look at all these pretty things they said.”
Yes, Watson, Look. At. Them. Look at all those statements given, while they all knew what was going on behind closed doors along their hallways of power.
”I’d love a machine that would take me to an alternate dimension where Hillary had won,”
Would a pretty gosh darn funny website suffice?
http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/
Really funny. Is that an Onion subsidiary?
”Really funny.”
THAT’S not very nice. You are aware that there is a perpetually perturbed, terminally triggered, & significantly sizable demographic still struggling to cope with a fact-based reality, aren’t you?
Not being able to scrape the “I’m With Hillary” bumper sticker off’n the @$$ends of their Toyota Pious’ hasn’t allowed the healing to commence, either.
”Is that an Onion subsidiary?”
If it ain’t, it ought to be; Onionesque to be sure!
Speaking of The Onion, did you know where it cut its teeth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#Madison_(1988–2001)
“…didn’t happen a decade ago (on top of the fact that Twitter wasn’t a thing)”
Want to feel old? Twitter is almost twelve years old.
I remember first hearing about it when it became a big deal at SXSW back in ’07, and thinking, “That won’t last long. Who would be interested in such a limited platform that seems purposely designed to preclude intelligent conversation?” Turns out, I was very wrong, and every narcissist and stupid person on Earth loved it. There are, it seems, a lot of narcissists and stupid people.
My question to you is…let’s say you work in Hollywood and for years you hear rumors about Harvey…what do you do? What can you do? Let’s say your gut tells you it’s probably true, but you’re not sure…what then?