Report: Clinton Campaign Told Weinstein Was Rapist, Covered Scandal Up

A Wednesday report in The New York Times alleges that two prominent women warned the Clintons’ inner circle about Harvey Weinstein’s sexually predatory behavior during the 2008 and 2016 campaigns, yet the Clintons did nothing to distance themselves from the disgraced Hollywood magnate.

The revelations came in yet another long piece from The Times about how Weinstein — a serial pervert who almost certainly committed a panoply of sex crimes during his decades in the highest echelon of the Hollywood power structure — managed to avoid being outed while maintaining a high profile as a campaigner for liberal causes and candidates, including the Clintons.

The piece, by Megan Twohey, Jodi Kantor, Susan Dominus, Jim Rutenberg and Steve Eder, further delves into the machinations Weinstein used to continue harassing and assaulting women he had power over while keeping it all out of the press.

In spite of several glaring problems with the article that I’ll get into, it’s worth a read if you have the time (and trust me, I don’t oft say that regarding a New York Times piece). However the revelations about the Clintons are the most startling and damning parts of the latest exposé. And, this being the Times, they’re predictably buried way down in the story.

“If Mr. Weinstein built his wall of invulnerability from many varied bricks, it was covered with a sheen of celebrity. He created stars through his movies, but he also acquired famous friends through his other activities, including in the Democratic politics that dominate Hollywood,” the piece reads. “Chief among them were Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

“It is not clear if rumors of his record of sexual misconduct had ever reached them,” the story declaims.

And then the writers make it remarkably clear that rumors of his record of sexual misconduct almost certainly reached them.

According to the report, two powerful liberal women — Daily Beast founder and editor Tina Brown and actress/”Girls” creator/social media gadfly Lena Dunham — both explicitly warned top Clinton aides that Weinstein was a rapist and that the Clintons ought to distance themselves from him.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2008 run at the presidency, Brown — who had worked under Weinstein at Talk Magazine — “said she cautioned a member of Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle about (Weinstein).”

“I was hearing that Harvey’s sleaziness with women had escalated since I left Talk in 2002 and she was unwise to be so closely associated with him,” Brown told The Times in an email.

During the 2016 campaign, Dunham, who had become a surrogate for the Clinton campaign, was significantly more explicit in her warning about the danger Weinstein posed.

“I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Dunham apparently told campaign deputy communications director Kristina Schake,

“I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault,” she added.

Dunham’s warning might have been easier for conservatives to dismiss; the “Girls” star has been involved in all sorts of public discomfitures involving her alleged prevarications over everything from dubious rape allegations to why she abandoned her dog.

That said, the left seems to ignore most of these imbroglios, which is why she was an active surrogate for Clinton during the campaign in the first place. If Dunham had gone to one of Clinton’s top advisers and said Weinstein was a rapist, I don’t doubt she would have been listened to.

Brown, meanwhile, may have had a few controversies in a long career in media, but few would argue that she’s a) trustworthy and b) has especial experience with Mr. Weinstein, given her working relationship with him. If she had gone to a member of Clinton’s inner circle and accused Weinstein of this sort of behavior, I don’t see a way that this wouldn’t have reached Hillary.

I will give credit where credit is due, no matter what the inherent bias of the source: the reporters of The New York Times who have exposed the panoply of men who have used their positions to force women into compromising sexual situations where they were either forced to comply or where there was an unequal power dynamic have done America and the world a great favor.

It would have been nice to have seen this kind of bravery 20-odd years ago, when a sitting president stood accused of sexual harassment, rape and perjuring himself over a relationship with an intern, but whatever. You take what you can get

That being said, writing a story like this and burying the Clintons deep into it — and then having the temerity to claim that “It is not clear if rumors of his record of sexual misconduct had ever reached them” — pretty much blows that all out of the water.

It’s intensely clear that this almost certainly reached them. If Tina Brown tells a member of the inner circle that Harvey Weinstein is a sexual abuser, that’s going straight to Hillary Clinton. Same thing with Lena Dunham. If they didn’t, they didn’t pass it on for a very specific reason.

Perhaps it’s because Harvey Weinstein was very powerful, very rich, and very willing to donate money. Perhaps they thought he would never get caught. Perhaps they thought distancing themselves from Weinstein would have drawn drawn attention to Bill Clinton’s past and the fact that Hillary enabled his wretched decisions.

Whichever way this goes, one thing is for certain: Hillary Clinton almost certainly knew. And neither her nor her husband did anything to stop it.

H/T The Daily Caller

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on this latest revelation.

What do you think about the Clintons’ relationship with Harvey Weinstein? Scroll down to comment below!