‘How could we have known?’ Clinton claims ignorance on Weinstein accusations despite numerous warnings to campaign





                                                                                 

Gwyneth Paltrow, Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein at Shakespeare in Love premiere. ©  PM/ELD

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton feels no guilt about taking money from one of her most famous donors, disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein. She claims she was clueless about his alleged sexual misconduct, but others suggest a different story. 

   

“How could we have known?” former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter in a Tuesday interview when asked about taking money from movie producer Harvey Weinstein, who is currently on trial for rape.

 

The ‘Pulp Fiction’ producer was “outed” in 2017 when the New York Times published a story detailing numerous accusations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein over the years. Notable celebrities like Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rose McGowan, and others came forward with stories of Weinstein either abusing or harassing them.

 

Clinton claimed if she knew anything of the man’s alleged deeds, she would not have cashed the checks. 

 

“And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior,” she said. She also noted that Weinstein had donated to other prominent Democrats like Barack Obama.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton’s words ring hollow for several reasons. Even if she can claim she was unaware of the accusations against Weinstein, multiple people have come forward to say that staffers around Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign were in fact made well aware. 

 

‘Girls’ actress and creator Lena Dunham told the New York Times that she had warned Clinton’s campaign against having Weinstein do any fundraising.

 

“I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Dunham recalled telling campaign staffers. “I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fundraisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.”

Journalist Tina Brown similarly said she warned the campaign.

 

“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,” she said to the Times. 

 

These warnings were just some of the bad word of mouth surrounding Weinstein before he was exposed by the Times. Plenty of filmmakers were open about their disdain for the man and refused to work with him, Vincent Gallo among them, and others such as Seth MacFarlane openly mocked Hollywood’s silence on his relationship with actresses.

 

Ronan Farrow, who was behind the original expose on Weinstein, already said that Clinton publicist Nick Merrill had tried to convince him to not run with his Weinstein story.

Farrow claimed in his book ‘Catch and Kill’ that Merrill informed him in the summer of 2017 that the Weinstein expose was a “concern for us.”

At the time the Times story about Weinstein dropped, the producer was working on a film about Clinton.

Despite all of this, Clinton waves off Weinstein and claims ignorance — not a great strategy for someone looking to be a leader of any sorts.


SOURCE
https://www.rt.com/usa/478832-hillary-clinton-harvey-weinstein/