IN THE COMMENTS: Dickin'Bimbos@Home said "Harvey bundled big D-money for you, Hillary - Any Comment on that, Hillary?"
Watch the video. I didn't blog about that part, but it's in there. She says she can't give the money back, but whatever she got should be deemed included in the 10% of her income she always gives to charity anyway. I'm paraphrasing — to make it clearer. What she garbled out was:
"What other people [how got money from Harvey Weinstein] are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they're going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that. I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it."
Posts
174 comments:
She is unable to say Harvey Weinsteins name.
Harvey bundled big D-money for you, Hillary - Any Comment on that, Hillary?
Various Clinton Era "Bimbos" were unavailable for comment/
Hillary- you tolerated your husband's abuse of women. You aided in the destruction of those women. Any shame... Hillary?
Safe to say her husband name was never mentioned?
I can’t afford to spend battery on Hillary.
The fight is over who organizes the mob.
President Hillary Clinton. (cringe)
Mobs of crazed women films would make millions.
Akin to violent woman gets revenge films.
Of course, Hillary has no shame...she's part of our ruling class!
I hadn't thought but I wonder where the shower-scene genre comes from. Not just Hitchcock, probably.
What Lem asks: I didn't watch the whole interview. Was she ever asked how her covering for her husband might have emboldened people like Weinstein?
Is there a transcript of the interview somewhere?
Isn't this the kind of situation that usually makes cyborgs self-destruct because of the contradiction?
If Fareed wasn't such a fucking coward, he could have asked the bitch about her husband's abuse of women.
Another man lets Hillary down, completely unexpectedly. Will her victimization never stop?
Hillary - You make normal people sick. Only people lacking any moral core listen to your garbage, and buy it.
We’ve had a series of revelations about companies in Silicon Valley — you know, just sexual harassment and sexual assault being, you know, kind of accepted.
What event showed us sexual assault is (kind of) accepted in Silicon Valley?
We're two months from James Damore. The left lied about what was happening then and they're lying even more about it now. We're watching the creation of mythology in real time. The left's worldview is a game of telephone where each successive retelling warps the facts further and further from reality.
It's despicable.
Clintons are shameless/ hypocrites , and it got them all the way to the Presidency and being very rich.
Almost got them a 2nd Presidency, but along came Trump. Just as shameless and hypocritical. And with just as sharp elbows.
And now the Justice Department is investigating Harvey Weinstein, supposedly on Trumps orders. Trump's making the rubble bounce.
#maga
"the courage of these women coming forward now."
And by "coming forward now," I don't mean now 5 or 6 days ago. I mean now now. The fierce urgency of now now.
I assume CNN never asked The Dickin questions...
It will be important to have this video of Hillary for posterity. It’s Zapruderesque.
"the courage of these women coming forward now."
Now we know that it is capable of irony.
Theodore Dalrymple sez -
"The life of Man being but three score years and ten, nothing on earth would induce me to read Hillary Clinton’s memoir of her electoral defeat, short of an assurance that I had two millennia rather than only two years to go. In fact, no memoir by any modern politician would tempt me to read it, since the main characteristic of such politicians is mediocrity tempered by unbridled ambition and lust for power. Better to reread Macbeth. Hillary Clinton, after all, is Lady Macbeth to Bill Clinton’s Felix Krull, the confidence trickster."
I'm shocked, shocked. I had no idea. Wha', wha', what happened? This is another side to a person I would have called a friend. No idea, no idea, no idea. I didn't know. No, no idea, no idea at all. What happened?
This keeps happening to me. The men round me - Bill, Anthony, Harvey. I'm shocked, shocked over and over and over. I have PTSD from being shocked by the men around me. I'm running for President in 2020. I will be aware of dangers and keep America safe for brutalizing elite behavior. Donate today please - there's a shortfall due to poor Harvey being victimized by Trump. I know what happened. It is Trump's fault - and the NRA.
Over two dozen posts over seven days.
Ann wrote only one critical post (that was qualified) about Trump when he was caught bragging on Access Hollywood that he liked to grab women by the pussy and forcibly kiss them. Ann did not do any posts when many women came forward and said they were victims of sexual harrassment in the work place at the hands of Trump.
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and this Weinstein guy are all scum buckets. But Ann is just another hack who only sees the issue as a political cudgel.
Anthony Bourdain : “know what Hillary Clinton is NOT? She's not stupid. Or unsophisticated about the world. The Weinstein stories had been out there for years”
>Over two dozen posts over seven days.
And the story's not going away, despite your lame efforts to suppress it.
How does it feel to be that pointless?
I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it.
Weinstein gave the money to her campaign, which can't be mingled with her personal funds. Her income and her campaign income are completely, legally different. Not to be a stickler, but it's interesting to see all of these politicians interchanging these funds, even rhetorically.
I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that.
Amazing how fungible some things are.
Outrage, for example.
Now I Know! said...
Over two dozen posts over seven days.
That's shocking! And you're reading them and counting them and commenting on each one.
Did you know? "The number seven had a mystical significance to Babylonians."
And the number "over two dozen" didn't have any significance.
And if you divide a regular number by a mystical number you get a mystical number, so the number of posts per day is a mystical number. That means you can't complain about it.
Sanctimony never goes out of style.
Very impressed at the courage Hillary showed by sitting down one on one with hard-hitting journalist, Zakaria. He could have asked her anything. ANYTHING AT ALL I'm sure.
Weinstein promised to attack the NRA
Some facts on murders in the US
The homicide rate may be rising in some U.S. cities, but slayings are still a localized phenomenon, with most U.S. counties not seeing a single homicide in 2014.
The vast majority of homicides occurred in just 5 percent of counties, and even there the murders were localized, with some neighborhoods untouched by the violence, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Crime Prevention Research Center.
“I just think most people have a real misunderstanding about how heavily concentrated murders are,” said John R. Lott Jr., the author of the study. “You have over half the murders in the United States taking place in 2 percent of the counties.”
About 70 percent of the counties, accounting for 20 percent of the U.S. population, had no more than one murder in 2014, with 54 percent of counties experiencing zero murders, the report found.
Meanwhile, 5 percent of the counties, which made up nearly half the population, accounted for more than two-thirds of murders in the country, with the highest numbers concentrated in areas around major cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
....
Mr. Weisburd said that in his studies of larger cities, about 1 percent of the streets produce 25 percent of the crime and about 5 percent of the streets produce 50 percent of the crime.
One difference in the county-by-county numbers was that gun ownership was heaviest in rural and suburban areas where there were few murders, Mr. Lott said.....
“The places where we see the murders tend to be those area[s], the urban areas, and even tiny areas within those areas, where legal gun ownership is itself relatively rare,” he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/most-murders-occurred-in-5-percent-of-countys-says/
Probably sexual assault in higher in Hollywood than on the meanest streets in LA - if we knew the facts
"I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it."
She's either stupid or she thinks we are.
I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it.
So she considers campaign contributions as income?
And that ten percent she allegedly gives to charity, will be to her own foundation where less than ten percent actually goes to charitable causes.
Maybe HW did give HRC money directly in speaking fees and other bribes.
Isn't this the kind of situation that usually makes cyborgs self-destruct because of the contradiction?
Heh.
Courage, my ass. Coming forward with the crowd, that's not courage.
Hillary Clinton, Meryl Streep, George Clooney, etc., etc.: they're all full of shit. From the top of their heads to the souls of their feet.
McGowan, though she's performing a necessary service, is full of shit. She should have spoken out years ago. Now that she's got nothing much to lose -- her career is over -- she speaking out, and that's not courage.
She's probably angry with herself for not having spoken up when she was young, when it would have been dangerous -- and brave, and likely fatal to her career -- to do so.
People in the film business wouldn't know courage if it came up and bitch-slapped them in the face.
Now I Know! said...
Over two dozen posts over seven days.
___________________________________________________________________________________
So start your own blog.
No one's forcing you to read this ... unless you are being paid to read and comment. And if you're not, you're a bigger fool than ever.
The Weinstein story was broke by the New York Times and the New Yorker. Why didn't conservative media break this story? If his behavior was so well known you would think conservative media would have been gleeful to get it out there. But instead it is the main stream press that uncovered it.
Dow approaching 23,000, "Now I Know".
it's interesting to see all of these politicians interchanging these funds, even rhetorically.
By "interesting" you mean "possibly felonious," given this is Mrs. Clinton we are talking about here. Although no rational prosecutor would ever take up the case...
Hillary as the spokes-woman for victims of sexual abuse speaking out, no irony there at all.
Good Lord! How can we get this woman to just GO AWAY?
How do her campaign contributors feel about the money they expected to help get her elected going to some charity? Maybe that's why she lost, because she gave away 10% of her campaign money? Maybe that's the 10% she should have spent on campaigning in PA, MI and WI.
Wow, she must really think people are stupid.
@Now, I Know,
Your new position is to criticize Foxnews for NOT breaking the sexual assault stories of Democrat mega-donor, Hollywood mogul, Harvey Weinstein?!!?
Oy Vay, as my Aunt Ester used to say.
Her income and her campaign income are completely, legally different.
So she considers campaign contributions as income?
Another reason to "LOCK HER UP!!". In the long run, she isn't doing herself any favors. The more she talks, the more she reveals her crime.
Very impressed at the courage Hillary showed by sitting down one on one with hard-hitting journalist, Zakaria. He could have asked her anything. ANYTHING AT ALL I'm sure.
Good one, Meade.
What a thoroughly rotten person she is. Thank God she isn't president. I mean that: Thank God.
Yancey Ward said...
Wow, she must really think people are stupid.
10/12/17, 10:06 AM
Don't need to think it, she knows it. Review the election results. Every SINGLE Hillary vote was someone shouting to the world how stupid they are. It is enough to numb one's mind to know how many there are and how unashamed of their stupidity they are, and in some cases actually proud of it.
The point is that Ann does not care one whit about sexual harassment as a serious issue in this country. Instead, she just wants to be a part of the right wing echo chamber. Ann is championing through her more than two dozen posts over the last seven days that this is just another political issue to be bandied about against your political foes.
Headline today in the Times of London online::
"As more stars come forward to accuse one of Hollywood's power players, Jenni Russell writes that most women have had a Weinstein moment"
If "a Weinstein moment" catches on as a generic reference to male sexual misconduct, Weinstein can bask in the knowledge that he has achieved a level of fame far beyond his 15 minutes of notoriety.
"Ann wrote only one critical post (that was qualified) about Trump when he was caught bragging on Access Hollywood that he liked to grab women by the pussy and forcibly kiss them. Ann did not do any posts when many women came forward and said they were victims of sexual harrassment in the work place at the hands of Trump."
What method did you use to search the archive?
What is the "one critical post" you found and what is the qualification that makes it not enough for you?
Also: When you find the extent to which you are wrong, will you apologize? Or will you simply not bother with the search?
Answer these questions very soon or I will delete all your posts from now on.
I will
How can we possibly believe that Hillary was unaware of Weinstein's behavior? It was well know in the industry, and personal supporters, such as Ashley Judd who had be assaulted, never mentioned it. If she only heard rumors, as champion of woman, did she not have a fiduciary duty to confirm their validity?
If she had spoken out years ago, how many fewer victims would there be? She had the opportunity and ability to make a real difference; and chance to stand-up for her espoused beliefs, and then chose to personal gain to 'trump' integrity.
If "a Weinstein moment" catches on as a generic reference to male sexual misconduct, Weinstein can bask in the knowledge that he has achieved a level of fame far beyond his 15 minutes of notoriety.
To be truly etymologically immortal, it needs to just be "a weinstein". Like a spoonerism.
There was an interesting exchange between Anthony Bourdain and some Hillary stooge Brian Fallon:
https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/918303955926634499
Interesting. Harvey's support network has collapsed, other than Donna Karen. Hillary's is still pretty strong. Why does Hillary still even have a support network? Why are there people -- and people in prestigious positions, at that -- who are still emotionally invested in her and cover for her?
What does she have that Harvey doesn't?
Ann, first, it is quite telling that you did not create a tag for the Access Hollywood/Pussygate controversy.
"What does she have that Harvey doesn't?"
FBI files.
Presumably the charity Hillary tithes to is the Clinton Foundation.
I give 10% of my income to charity every year
That's a lot of underwear.
Re: You not having written about Trump - which you did
I have a serious question; how does Trump's behavior justify the actions taken by these brave people in ignoring Weinstein? I have been told Trump is just as bad and Trump ignored O'Reilly and Ailes, even said he did not believe the allegations against O'Reilly! As somehow this justifies their conspiracy of silence.
Did Hollywood liberals and the Clintons, worry 15+ years ago that Trump would be elected, therefore this granted them permission to ignore what was happening? Or is it more important to talk-the-talk, than walk-the-walk?
I would like to see an analysis of the amount of money raised by Weinstein for Bill and Hillary over the years and then calculate how many years into the past and future they would have to go for the Clinton charitable donations make up for the campaign contributions. My guess is that it will take several generations of Clinton family members to make that up.
I think Lance at 10:00 AM just pointed to the smoking gun.
No-one will dare ask about Bill, and it probably gets her panties wet knowing it.
Mr. Weisburd said that in his studies of larger cities, about 1 percent of the streets produce 25 percent of the crime and about 5 percent of the streets produce 50 percent of the crime.
Probably sexual assault in higher in Hollywood than on the meanest streets in LA - if we knew the facts
This type of concentration is so frequent when applied to nearly any data set. Health care consumption, traffic accidents, anything.
Probably sexual assault in higher in Hollywood than on the meanest streets in LA - if we knew the facts
10/12/17, 9:58 AM
I would bet any amount of money that sexual assaults occur more frequently in Hollywood than they do on college campuses.
Should have asked her if Harvey was one of the Clinton donors who contributed to the Paula Jones $850,000 settlement.
When the left abandons their hypocrisy on Bill Clinton will be the day I might believe that they care about Trump's words.
Even by Hillary's standards, that interview made her appear phony and hypocritical. That artificial laugh was unsettling. Even the CNN people were critical of her. Hillary is genuinely awful. If the men with impact on your life look like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Harvey Weinstein, you've got to consider the possibility you're doing something wrong.
O'Reilly said a woman's purse was ugly. He called a woman "hot chocolate." Btw, that last woman called herself "hot chocolate" on social media fifty times.
When Chuck shows up to defend Hillary this post will be complete.
Now I know! If Fox news broke the story - you'd be be going all Hillary and referring to the story as a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Easily found just using the "sexual harassment" tag:
1. "Yes, Tim Kaine is right. Trump's statement — which is itself only words — is a confession to behavior. Criminal behavior. Sexual assault." October 7.
2. "And I agree with Soave that the problem goes beyond sex. It reveals an attitude about how to use power: If there is no external restraint, you can do anything. You can't trust a person with power who doesn't have an internal moral core and who is not governed by self-restraint." October 8.
3. "'In fairness to Trump, other senior men in politics and business — John Kennedy and Bill Clinton come to mind — also sometimes showed a sense of entitlement toward young women.' Writes Nicholas Kristof about allegations of sexual harassment by Jill Harth against Donald Trump. The "different time" was not 1964. It was 1994. We knew about sexual harassment then. We knew it very well. We'd just had our consciousness raised. (That was before it was lowered, in 1998.)... Kristof says that in the end he decided that Harth is telling the truth. Has Kristof ever opined about Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey? A search of the NYT archive turns up nothing with his name and either of those 2 women who have alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton." October 8.
4. "Trump wasn't bragging about male prowess. He was insulting the women. This is what I'm thinking as I find myself responding to some on Facebook — in an unlinkable place — who wondered why Trump would brag about getting so much access to beautiful women. I wrote: 'Maybe that's not the real substance of the brag. I'm thinking it's more: These women are so pathetic. O'Dell stood up to me, but even she was lame, because she went and got her breasts inflated. The rest of them, they just fall into your hands because you're a star. It's nothing special [that they do] for him. It's for all stars. Women are low. Women are shallow. Doesn't that message make sense? The fact that he's old underscores this message: The women are going for the man's status. In that light, it's not even a brag. It's misogyny, justified (from his point of view).... Perhaps inside he's weak and lonely. Are not the women who fall into his hands objectifying him? And isn't he objectifying himself? He's a thing — "automatically attracted." An automaton is not a person. "It's like a magnet." A magnet is a thing. Where is the person? He grabs for the body part, like a baby, grabbing for mommy. And then he's outraged that the woman he reached out to has "now got the big phony tits." Mommy is not real... Sad!" October 8.
5. "... Anderson Cooper brought in the grab-them-by-the-pussy tape we've all been talking about, and here we know Trump had to have a prepared answer. The answer was: 1. It "was locker room talk," 2. He's "not proud of it," 3. He apologizes to his family and to the American people, and 4. ISIS is way worse — they chop off heads! — and he's going "knock the hell out of ISIS." Cooper pins him down and gets him to deny that he's ever done "those things" that he talked about (which Cooper, like me and many others, characterizes as "sexual assault). This was a perfect opportunity for Hillary Clinton to get back to the townswoman's question, but the townswoman was forgotten as Hillary spoke of women in general. Women women women women women women women. She says "women" 7 times... and ends with: "We will celebrate our diversity." Trump insists on speaking again — after Martha Raddatz tries to move on to a question "from online" — but he doesn't get back to the townswoman either. He begins "It’s just words, folks. It’s just words." He didn't mean his grab-them-by-the-pussy business was just words. He meant Hillary's statement was just words. But once she gets your vote, "she does nothing."" October 10.
6. "But at some point, these things accumulate, and you think: That's too much. And yet: Be careful. When a person has opponents, and they know these things accumulate, they can dribble out one thing after another and cause you to think it's too much. There are just so many things! But the things, individually, may, on careful inspection, be nothing. A lot of zeroes are not a lot. They're still nothing. With Trump, the things are not all zeroes, and we may be so fed up that we don't care enough anymore to look closely to see what is really a zero or close to zero. If so, we empower the dribblers." October 14.
7. "Trippi seems to assume that the only way for Trump to defend himself is to "go after" the women. Even though Trump's opponent has a record of attacking women who made sexual allegations against her husband, Trump could stress the unfairness of dropping these stories so late in the process. And there might be a way to connect this to the Rolling Stone trial that's starting tomorrow. Allegations can be false and the process can be unfair. That could inspire some empathy for the pugnacious billionaire. Who knows?" October 16.
8. "Likely voters are split just about evenly about whether they think many men say things like Trump's "Access Hollywood" remarks.... These numbers would make me think Trump has a decent chance to ride out what I thought was his death knell (because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault).... rump's own recorded remarks have had a much more powerful effect on me than the statements of the women who have come forward in these last weeks of the campaign to make allegations. It seems unfair to drop this material into the campaign now. And I don't know the details of what they said Trump did. If I had been surveyed, however, I would have said I'd heard the news, and I wouldn't have known how to answer the follow-up about whether I thought it was true. I might have said "Probably true" simply because of the weakness of the expression "unwanted advances."... I don't see how you can be President without having an internal sense of the reality of the rule of law." October 17.
9. "[Blah blah blah w]rites Scott Adams, who is quick to say that he's just offering some "context" and "excuse or condone anything Trump has allegedly done." I don't think this context is anything sophisticated adults don't already understand, but the point is that Trump is running to be President. He needs to be worthy of great trust and not confused by people who are in awe of him. People will be in awe of the President, and he needs to have his wits about him. If he — even as an old man — sees young women as his willing play things, he's not very sharp. He's an old fool. We don't need an old fool as our President." October 17.
Anthony Bourdain : “know what Hillary Clinton is NOT? She's not stupid. Or unsophisticated about the world. The Weinstein stories had been out there for years”
I dunno...does an intelligent, sophisticated person speak like this:
"We’ve had a series of revelations about companies in Silicon Valley — you know, just sexual harassment and sexual assault being, you know, kind of accepted."
Or this:
"I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it."
Dear Hillary, to paraphrase from Harvey Weinstein's Miramax-produced Tarantino-directed movie True Romance,
Do the American people look like a beautiful blonde with big tits and an ass that tastes like french vanilla ice cream?
No, okay then why are you telling us all this bullshit? do you wanna fuck us?
(Like, with a cloth?)
Trump's quote--And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Does Trump say that he grabbed women by the pussy? Lefties are fucking liars, as well as rapists and molesters.
I question the unwritten rule that a politician should reject a campaign donation from a donor who has done something objectionable in his private life.
Harvey Weinstein's political contributions to Hillary Clinton were legitimate and were based on his approval of Clinton's character, experience and policies as the potential US President.
Her acceptance of his contributions does not imply any knowledge and approval of his sexual escapades.
This is just gotcha politics. We should not have this unwritten rule for any politicians.
"I question the unwritten rule that a politician should reject a campaign donation from a donor who has done something objectionable in his private life."
I'd make a distinction between someone who we know has done wrong, who's atoning by being generous after the story has come out, and someone who's still in the process of buying secrecy. If you take his money, you're part of his scheme to pass himself off as a good person. When you realize that you were used like that, you might want to give up the money so it doesn't taint you.
We should not have this unwritten rule for any politicians.
Ah, but it is written. It's rule #4
Virtue signaling demands it.
"Ann, first, it is quite telling that you did not create a tag for the Access Hollywood/Pussygate controversy."
I have a policy of avoiding tag proliferation.
I don't have a tag for Bill Clinton's sexual harassment problem.
I avoided even having a Donald Trump tag for a long time. I just used "The Apprentice" as the tag in the early days of his campaign.
I don't have a tag for Hillary's selling out of feminism for political ambition -- a big topic here for years.
You get so righteous about where I'm supposedly being inconsistent, but your standards are abysmal. You make accusations without making the most basic checks to see if you're getting things right. Did you attempt to understand how I do tags before pronouncing it "telling" that I didn't make a tag for something specific? I doubt it.
Ann, you did write more forcefully on Trump than I remembered. Some of those comments I may have missed at the time. So, I will apologize.
The troll is trying to steer the discussion away from the Clintons to criticizing Trump. It wants us to ignore the ugliness and hypocrisy of the Clinton's and make this story about Trump. The troll just got Althouse to repost her negative commentary about Trump. Score one for the troll.
So she sees campaign donations as part of her income?
Honestly, if Althouse won't write critically about Trump, who on the vast Internet will ? Anyone at all ?
"Presumably the charity Hillary tithes to is the Clinton Foundation."
That was apparently the case in the past, but they shut it down this year, after the other "donations" dried up, after her losing election to the office in which everyone "donating" to her foundation was expecting to get paid off. So, the big question is, whether the Clinton's will move back to donating their used underwear or not, or actually donate to some other progressive "charities" and the like. This is the first tax year in which the Clinton's will have to face this dilemma for some time, since they created their family foundation/slush fund. So, no doubt, since the Weinstein money was last year or earlier, she is talking about donating the money, essentially, to their own private slush fund/foundation.
Ken B said...
So she sees campaign donations as part of her income?
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing
Alinsky rules: make it personal by attacking Althouse; make her live up to her rules. Works like a charm.
The Clinton Family Foundation still exists.
I agree that Democrats have a "Bill Clinton Problem." But Republicans also have a Trump problem.
Where do we go from here? It was progressives (that includes some progressive Republicans) who many decades ago got laws passed making work place sexual harassment illegal. It was also made social unacceptable. It is a great thing that this Weinstein guy is being ripped to shreds, and rightly so. It should make others think twice before giving into their more base impulses.
Ultimately, this is a guy thing and a "Guy Culture" thing. Men in all walks of life engage in it. It should not be tolerated no matter where it comes from.
"Mike Sylwester said...
I question the unwritten rule that a politician should reject a campaign donation from a donor who has done something objectionable in his private life.
Harvey Weinstein's political contributions to Hillary Clinton were legitimate and were based on his approval of Clinton's character, experience and policies as the potential US President.
Her acceptance of his contributions does not imply any knowledge and approval of his sexual escapades.
This is just gotcha politics. We should not have this unwritten rule for any politicians."
And I suppose sometimes the dog DID eat some kid's homework.
What a dolt.
Satan, I rebuke you!
Call it vice signaling.
Here's the key thing about the Hollywood Access tape. NBC did not release it during the primaries. They thought Trump would be the weakest candidate during the general election so they waited until then to spring it. Compare this with how they sat on Ronan Farrow's story abou Harvey Weinstein. They truly are loathsome scumbags.........Trump's past sexual history is not edifying. However, both quantatively and qualitatively the offenses of Harvey Weinstein are of a different order of magnitude. So are Bill Clinton's. The attempts to make this about Trump are just further demonstrations of hypocrisy by the left.
Ann Althouse said...
"You get so righteous about where I'm supposedly being inconsistent, but your standards are abysmal."
Never apologize. Never explain.
"Presumably the charity Hillary tithes to is the Clinton Foundation."
& The Clinton Foundation tithes to the Clinton family. It's all so very charitable.
It is not a win for me, "The Troll," by getting Ann to repost her Trump sexual harassment posts from last year. (Many I missed.) It is good for people to see that Ann did not just gloss over Trump's troubling behavior when it was exposed last year.
Now I know!
Bill Clinton got blow jobs from a very young intern (got that? Intern.) in the Oval office. This is not in dispute. He got more than one. He once inserted a cigar into the vagina of the young intern (got that? intern). Trump ? Talked.
Well that was embarrassing. ..
Jupiter, see above. I did apologize.
Many women have come forward about Trump's abusive behavior.
Now I Know!
Not so "troubling" to you? The cigar bit? Or the blow jobs? Don't gloss over your troubledness.
Now I Know!!
many women have come forward....
Ah, one of those "everybody knew" situations where the press is bending over backwards to protect Trump.
Fool.
You missed the posts because you didn't look. You didn't look because you're lazy. Now you know to put in the work or stay silent.
Ann, do you think that most of your conservative readership cares about this story because it is a case of gross sexual harassment? Or do they find it of interest because he supported Democrats?
Re: Now I Know! (fmr. Once written,...)
In the words of Hawkeye Pierce,
Why don't you avoid the Christmas rush and start deleting him now?
Maybe he climbed down sufficiently for you this time, which I'm sure he judged very finely. But it's only posturing. Having trolled you successfully enough to consume that piece of your life, he'll abuse you, us, and the truth again. When he does, just drop him, would be my suggestion.
Ann, do you think that most of your conservative readership cares about this story because it is a case of gross sexual harassment? Or do they find it of interest because he supported Democrats?
Look at this. Total trolling.
Ann, do you think that most of your leftist readership fears, hates and avoids this story because he supported Democrats? Or can there possibly be some other reason?
"What other people [how got money from Harvey Weinstein] are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they're going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that. I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it."
The thing about this is that if she actually does always give 10% of her money to charity then keeping HW's money is a 100% dollar for dollar benefit to her. What a fucking cunt.
a different order of magnitude.
A different type: star power vs. employer and star maker
What would have been the cost for Trump's accusers to have come forward at the time? Fifteen minutes of fame, unless they were in commercial real estate.
"Now I Know! said...
Many women have come forward about Trump's abusive behavior."
Who? Name five. The worse five.
Look, Hillary Clinton has been the absolute master of straight-faced shameless hypocrisy for what, twenty-five years? She can spin this kind of stuff in her sleep.
So if Hillary "always" gives 10 percent of her income to charity, then how is making the Weinstein donations "part of that" a sacrifice on her part?
Her statement makes absolutely no sense.
The math:
Hillary Income $3 million
Weinstein Donation $200,000
Total - $3.2 million
Charity @ 10% - $320,000
Hilary Income to Charity - $300,000
Weinstein Donation to Charity - $20,000
I'm assuming Weinstein donation is somehow part of her personal income - which is doubtful.
"Now I Know! said...
I agree that Democrats have a "Bill Clinton Problem." But Republicans also have a Trump problem"
They still refuse to talk about it, still refuse to call out Hillary on her nauseating hypocrisy. One troll does not a spring make. Wikileaks was right that the press works hand in glove with the Clintons.
Ann Althouse at 10:45 AM
I'd make a distinction between someone who we know has done wrong, who's atoning by being generous after the story has come out, and someone who's still in the process of buying secrecy.
Weinstein's donations to Clinton's political campaign were not "in the process of buying secrecy".
He is a partisan Democrat who donates to Democrat campaigns all the time so that the Democrats will win elections and govern.
There is no good reason to think that Weinstein's donations to the Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign had any intention at all to "buy secrecy".
Therefore, there is no good reason that Clinton should reject his donations.
This is just gotcha politics. There should not be such an unwritten rule for any politicians.
Why bring Trump into this? The MSM and RINO establishment looked under every rock for 2 years trying to find dirt on Trump.
The best they could do was a taped private conversation that happened 10 years ago. Where Trump talked about women allowing you to "grab them by the pussy" if you were a star. NOT - I grabbed women the pussy. NOT - Its a good thing to grab them by their pussy.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is lying under oath, sexually harassing women and Weinstein is committing sexual assault and possible attempted rape.
>Where do we go from here?
What do you mean 'we'?
This is in fact a huge political scandal and deserves the attention it is getting.
The sex is just the thin edge of the wedge. Weinstein himself is marginal.
The real interest here is not Weinstein, or his political contributions, but the insight into the culture and ethics of the entire American ruling class. The really interesting revelations are the methods of information control, whereby all this was suppressed, the open political influence, the background on how and, perhaps, why the major parts of the entertainment industry backed an ideological side. And on and on.
Its natural for partisans of the status quo to want to fog this all up.
Weird, isn't it that Democrats have to be dragged kicking and screaming to care about this story and have completely dug in their heels on the Clinton story. But it's the Republicans who are being partisan.
That's what cognitive dissonance feels like NIK.
Ha. So campaign contributions from Harvey are received tax free and are then contributed to charity where they earn a deduction. LOL.Surely this is not what she is implying. OTOH perhaps she is claiming that Harvey simply gave her money. For something.
Don't be naive. Weinstein's donation gave him cover. That's why in his "apology" letter he mentions being a big Democrat donor and a great progressive about 100 times.
"Give me a break, I'm a liberal".
His donations also gave him access to Obama and Hillary. Probably used that when he bellowed "Don't you know who I am?" to underlings and possible rape victims.
IN leftwing fem-o-hypocrite world - conservative men are always worse. Even after years of actual abuse by liberal progressive leftwing men.
Deflection in abuse syndrome: Are Hollywood Actresses really angry at Conservative men? Or is it all just a sham?
"The real interest here is not Weinstein, or his political contributions, but the insight into the culture and ethics of the entire American ruling class."
True but its also the fact that pigs like Weinstein are making films that effect the American culture and by extension all of us. If you ever wonder why Hollywood makes so many degenerate films, maybe its not the box office, maybe its the values of those in charge.
Anne,
Thanks so much for keeping your blog commentary interesting, and overall keeping the trolling by commenters to a minimum. I don't always agree with your positions, and find some of them huh (literary stuff - I just don't get), but you manage to get to the core issues.
I have been surprised at the efforts to derail you on the Harvey Weinstein posts. As well as your efforts to play fair with the commenters that are deliberately doing that by playing by Alinsky Rules. Forcing you to do all the work to reply to them, as they force you to play by your own standards, where they don't. Your push back above was very well done.
I see your viewpoint as cruel neutrality, and calling out hypocrisy be it right or left, and elsewhere in our society. As easy way for me to judge if a commentator is a troll, is when they accuse you of being a conservative.
Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment is a cultural inflection point. I am not sure what changes will result in our culture.
So she isn't going to do anything different with the Weinstein money, she just gives her "normal" 10% to "charity" which for years was The Clinton Foundation. And the Weinstein money is part of her usual 10%.And pretend it means something.
And these are the people telling me that Donald Trump is morally questionable?
Buwaya, as per usual, makes a good point, this is like turning on the light and getting to see all of the cockroaches scurry. This, in some ways, is like that last train out of East Germany, a preference cascade, and it is goung to take more than a few boit licking toadies in
The media.
Ann, do you think that most of your conservative readership cares about this story because it is a case of gross sexual harassment? Or do they find it of interest because he supported Democrats?
Personally I'm interested in it because I oppose rape and sexual harassment, and because it shows the corruption and hypocrisy of yet another Leftwing institution.
Who wants to play the "what about" game? The simple response to "What about Trump" is "What about Bill Clinton". He was an abuser of women and he was the fucking president, pun intended. What about that? What about Bill Clinton raping and abusing women and his wife covering for him and attacking the victims? What about her taking money from another serial woman abuser, and what about her having a close confidante whose husband couldn't keep his dick out of the newspapers. What about all that? And what about the DNC and their media stooges doing all they could, including lie, cheat and steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders, in the hopes of making this corrupt, hypocritical, loathsome woman our President? What about that?
The left has a lot of "what abouts" to answer about the Clintons. As for "what about Trump", the answer is simple: he is the answer from the electorate to the question "What about Hillary as our next President"?
Honestly although I have no sympathy for her, this was an impossible situation for HRC. When she was silent, everyone naturally called for her to speak out, but there is nothing she can say that will not be hypocritical.
This part struck me:
This has to be a wake-up call and shine a bright spotlight on anything like this behavior anywhere, at any time. We’ve had a series of revelations about companies in Silicon Valley — you know, just sexual harassment and sexual assault being, you know, kind of accepted. That’s the cutting edge of our economy.
Why is she bringing up Silicon Valley? That has to be a veiled threat aimed at someone, right? Maybe to keep other donors in line beforehand they jump ship for the Sanders wing of the party?
Curious George, Mike Sylwester
Your comments assume Hillary was oblivious to the abuse. Can you honestly state that Hillary had no clue about Bill; she also had no clue about Weiner, and she had no clue about Weinstein. And no one in her vast entourage had a clue nor ever tried to bring up the subject with her during the decades of its occurrence? No FBI file, etc. Seems to me she has to one the most clueless women alive, or amoral.
"We're two months from James Damore. The left lied about what was happening then and they're lying even more about it now. We're watching the creation of mythology in real time. The left's worldview is a game of telephone where each successive retelling warps the facts further and further from reality.
It's despicable."
Indeed.
Uh - is she trying to characterize these contributions as her income? And if one always gives 10%, how can one say that one is giving the proceeds to charity if one does not raise that amount.
Oh, well. She's been rather incoherent on the Biggest Loser tour anyway, and this is just one more example. We do not expect Hillary Clinton to set ethical standards in this country. Or even meet them.
Of course, Hillary knew what Weinstein was doing. Just like she has known forever about her husband's skirt-chasing. Perhaps at one point she even cared about it and felt hurt and betrayed - like a normal woman would be. But whatever soul or heart she once had has been extinguished over the decades by her ambition and lust for power and control.
>There should not be such an unwritten rule for any politicians.
I hear you, but this is the problem I alluded to earlier on another thread. Once corruption is exposed, it's incredibly difficult to take anything at face value. DA drops a case? Maybe innocent, but y'know...
Personally I suspect Hillary did know, because she has a track record of covering up sexual harassment cases. YMMV and I can respect that.
Here is another layer of this onion to consider. Harvey Weinstein was quite the fundraiser for the Democrats - a "bundler" as I recall. The current discussion has to do with women being coerced sexually, and men possibly being coerced into silence.
Wonder if anyone will admit that perhaps their contributions were coerced? "You better pay if you want to play"? Instead of the "Employer United Way soft touch for getting employees to contribute", try to imagine Weinstein calling someone up and telling them to contribute to the DNC or Hillary. It might have sounded like that private tape with the actress.
" It is good for people to see that Ann did not just gloss over Trump's troubling behavior when it was exposed last year."
We all saw it at the time. So did you, when you were doing the same shit.
The Mayor of Seattle stepped down recently over old allegations he molested teenage boys. A number of people had to step forward before he resigned. Very similar situation - you know damn well if the Mayor had been deemed a conservative, he would have been out on his ass after allegation number one. Reading the local media, with its apologists for the Mayor....very similar.
Buwaya, as per usual, makes a good point, this is like turning on the light and getting to see all of the cockroaches scurry.
Hey! I'm taking credit for the cockroach metaphor -- see my posts yesterday!
Buwaya is right, this is a big BIG deal, a major political/cultural scandal, and I'm glad Ann is blogging about it relentlessly.
But I said the cockroach thing first. I mean, geez, credit where it is due and all that.
Now I Know! said...
Ann, do you think that most of your conservative readership cares about this story because it is a case of gross sexual harassment? Or do they find it of interest because he supported Democrats?
10/12/17, 11:21 AM
Speaking for myself, I care in so much as it is a person in a position of power taking advantage of those with much less power.
I see NOTHING wrong with an adult "hitting" on another adult as long as the recipient is "free and clear" to decline. That is called life. The threat of professional consequences for declining is what makes the difference. I don't care who you are or how you vote. I care about the lack of self determination.
If you initiate a "hook up" because YOU think you will benefit, OK fine. You attempted to establish some sort of quid pro quo. It will either work or it won't but you had all the agency as far at "taking a shot" and would have to live with the consequences (external and internal). I view the "casting couch" completely differently, "give in to me or you will never work in this town (or industry, or government, etc.) again!" That is sexual extortion and as such should not be tolerated by ANYONE.
"It is not a win for me, "The Troll," by getting Ann to repost her Trump sexual harassment posts from last year. (Many I missed.) It is good for people to see that Ann did not just gloss over Trump's troubling behavior when it was exposed last year."
-- Something that people who read the blog already knew. All you did was lazily come in, insult the author of the blog and flail around. If you can't do basic homework, maybe stick to commenting on things that don't ruin the discussion for the rest of folks who can remember things from longer ago than a few weeks.
Very similar situation - you know damn well if the Mayor had been deemed a conservative, he would have been out on his ass after allegation number one.
10/12/17, 12:37 PM
And it would have received a lot more national attention.
It is not a win for me, "The Troll," by getting Ann to repost her Trump sexual harassment posts from last year. (Many I missed.)
We all already knew all about them, having read and discussed them, and thought you were an idiot every time you brought it up. I still don't think Althouse should have responded to you, because every time you said it, we got to laugh at you again.
@Dickin's post has it right, they are mad at conservatives because if it weren't for us, they wouldn't have to shut up and take it from liberals!
Anthony Bourdaine, husband of one of HW's victims, was also "non-plussed" at Hillary's response. The Clinton camp attacks:
On Hillary Clinton’s wedding anniversary, @Bourdain had nothing better to do than attack her. Sad. https://twitter.com/bourdain/status/918260116977307648 …
OMG!
I wonder how long before it dawns on good ole Bourdaine that hatred for Hillary isn't entirely "mindless."
Enabling rapists is what she does. But she gives money to charity. So there is that.
So going in a different direction on this subject, will Ronan's reporting finally result in his father getting thrown out of Hollywood? I'd guess that is the reason Ronan "went there."
http://freebeacon.com/culture/clinton-aides-gang-boyfriend-harvey-weinstein-accuser/
^^^ source of the above Tweet.
"What other people [how got money from Harvey Weinstein] are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they're going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that. I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no -- there's no doubt about it."
Those 30,000 emails were just wedding invitations and yoga, honest...
So, she tithes. Good that she does so. I like her a bit better for that
Blogger Michael said.
He once inserted a cigar into the vagina of the young intern (got that? intern)
...
I wonder what scores of items Bill inserted into Hillary over the years. We’ve all been there I guess. Born a thruster or needing to be thrusted. Or if gay, both.
What about the sexuality of betrayed wives? Do they revenge cheat? Do they loose interest, in disgust? Did Hillary cut off Bill again, after Anthony? And again this week? Bill must still have needs, how is he fulfilling them? What a mess. Once betrayed, you should leave.
" that this is just another political issue to be bandied about against your political foes."
Aw. Don't like it when you're forced to swallow your own medicine?
Tough shit.
"Unknown said...
Curious George, Mike Sylwester
Your comments assume Hillary was oblivious to the abuse."
Mine surely didn't. I was mocking him. Read again.
So, she tithes. Good that she does so. I like her a bit better for that
Basically, she tithes to herself. The vast majority of the Clintons' charitable contributions goes to their own foundation.
I asked:
"What method did you use to search the archive?
"What is the "one critical post" you found and what is the qualification that makes it not enough for you?
"Also: When you find the extent to which you are wrong, will you apologize? Or will you simply not bother with the search?
"Answer these questions very soon or I will delete all your posts from now on.
Now I Know! said: "I will."
Despite numerous subsequent posts, Now I Know! failed to answer any of my questions.
I posted excepts from 9 old posts that devastated Now I Know's assertions about me. That led to a weak statement of apology, followed by lots of additional "yes, but" bullshit.
I am owed an exceedingly strong apology. Now I Know takes an attitude of moralism continually, but has shown ridiculous lack of ethics in this thread.
Tim in Vermont - heh - I say that Anthony B tweet string.
"lets ignore Harvey - Trump is worse!" is the collective left's hive mind response. Morally repugnant.
(saw)
Ann,
If Now I Know doesn't respond, I'm sure someone you know can track their IP address.
A simple binary choice that Weinstein and Bill Clinton gave their prey that Now I Know doesn't care about.
"So, she tithes. Good that she does so. I like her a bit better for that"
You trust Hillary to tell the truth?
That's sweet.
I read this blog not just because Althouse uses her platform the way I find useful and compelling, but also because an outsized number of commenters here are funny, informative, smart, and wise--and they don't need Ritmo, Sunsong, Inga, Cookie, ARM, or Now I Know to provide effective contrast.
What about Trump? What about whataboutism? That came roaring back into style pretty damn quick, huh?
Althouse
What is this "ethics" of which you speak?
sodal ye
Bill clinton grabs all the pussy he wants. You can bet on that.
Ann, let me offer an exceedingly strong apology.
Ann, I strongly apologize. You did write that Donald Trump confessed to criminal sexual assault.
Now I Know, link please.
Tim, link to what?
Why so desperate Now? You can change your name and come back again, just like you've done in the past.
Sure, ok.
"Weinstein promised to attack the NRA"
Planned Parenthood has killed more people than the NRA.
I have a dim memory of a Doris Day movie with Cary Grant(?) where she bends to his charms and becomes pregnant.... It could be A Touch of Mink(?).
At some point nuns running a home for wayward girls that was heavily supported by Cary Grant discover her pregnancy. A young nun is shocked. The older, wiser nun says something to the effect that he pays so much he should be allowed to make use of the facilities.
I think of that every time a prominent Democrat gets into a sexual kerfuffle. So long as they support Planned Parenthood and add lip service to mantra of Wymyn is Guud, apparently they should be able to make use of the facilities.
I hope that the Now I Know! post of 4:12 is the last. What a jackass
I am owed an exceedingly strong apology. Now I Know takes an attitude of moralism continually, but has shown ridiculous lack of ethics in this thread.
Emerita, why are you letting this guy waste your time? Burn him. At least let him spend a half-hour setting up a new identity to hock and mock you some more.
Now we know why Hillary never wore mini-skirts, her balls would show.
She'll never give any of it back! SHe's HILLARY!
She'll never give Wall Street money back, and she won't be giving entertainment mogul rapist money back.
Giving to Hillary justifies EVERYTHING!
Post a Comment