Tina Brown and Lena Dunham both warned Hillary Clinton aides about taking money and help from Harvey Weinstein. Dunham's warning in '16: “I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point."
As THE NEW YORK TIMES revealed yesterday, both Tina Brown (as early as 2008) and Lena Dunham (2016) warned Hillary about predator Harvey Weinstein.
And Hillary?
Did nothing.
Kept cozy with him, let him host fundraisers and took his donations.
Our 'feminist' Hillary, did nothing.
Not only did she not cut her ties to him, she also didn't refer him to any law agencies.
As a member of the Senate in 2008 (when Tina Brown's warning first came), she was required to follow up. Her oath of office required her to follow up with law agencies.
But she didn't.
The world found out Harvey assaulted women and harassed them and, yes, raped them in 2017.
But Hillary knew already. Senator Hillary Clinton knew while she was in the Senate.
She was warned.
She knew and did nothing.
Worse, she stayed tight with him.
But isn't that her pattern?
Bill Clinton cheats on her repeatedly and she stays with Bill.
Women come forward saying Bill harassed them (and Juanita Broaddrick states Bill raped her) and Hillary stays with him, attacks the women, but stays with him.
She tried to distract Monica Lewinsky the first time she publicly spoke of her, remember that.
And she lied then, remember that?
She said she'd learned of Monica from Bill on January 21st despite the fact that it had already been discussed January 18th on ABC's THIS WEEK (as well as elsewhere).
Remember what else she said in that interview?
Last week, in "The media works overtime not to believe the surviv...," we noted how Hillary's great, great friend Philippe Reines was attacking Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for the senator stating that Bill Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica Lewinsky (that's not exactly what she stated, we covered it last week, read the piece).
That struck us as strange, that attack. Did Philippe also plan on attacking Hillary?
Because Hillary came closer to what Philippe accused Kirsten of doing.
From that infamous interview:
LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second. Bill and Hillary Clinton aren’t involved in this story. If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?
CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.
LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?
CLINTON: Well, I think that—if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.
But it was proven true, this "serious offense" (Hillary's words).
Has anyone ever followed up on that with her?
How when she was part of the lie that no affair took place, she agreed it was "a very serious offense" if true? Did she still feel that way after the truth was exposed?
If not, why not?
It's worth noting, as we did last week, that Hillary's great friend Philippe is accused of harassment of women while working at the State Department under Hillary.
Strange the men that surround our 'feminist' Hillary, isn't it?
Certainly would appear she has a type.
Last week, she Tweeted "Every day I believe more in karma" in reference to NBC firing Matt Lauer for harassment.
Karma?
So she believes he got what was coming to him?
Feels like another lie.
If we don't like someone, and we don't like Matt Lauer, we don't do our part to promote their careers.
So if Hillary didn't want to help Matt, explain September 13th to us.
That's when she sat down for the live interview with Matt Lauer.
Now, yes, she could have demanded Savannah Guthrie interview her.
But we're not talking about that.
She gave Matt the first live interview.
Hillary Doormat gave it to Matt. Could have given it to Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid or any number of people at GOOD MORNING AMERICA.
But she went with Matt.
Mind you, GOOD MORNING AMERICA was the number one network morning show in September. But she didn't go for the biggest audience, she gave her first live interview to NBC's TODAY. The second highest rated show. And she gave it to Matt Lauer.
Hillary may talk about karma today but in October she was helping Matt's career.
Our great feminist?
More like our well traveled doormat.
Those e-mails?
She caused the problem.
She caused it originally by setting up her home brew server, by using non-government e-mail accounts, by sending confidential information in those e-mails.
She became the first presidential candidate to be under federal investigation while running for president.
But she made it worse.
Huma Abaden.
Why did Hillary keep her on the campaign?
The reason the FBI announcement of re-opening the investigation right before the election took place was because of Huma's husband. Anthony Look At My Weiner -- who had some of Hillary and Huma's e-mails on his computer (which the police seized because Weiner's a pervert).
That would be Huma's husband who is currently behind bars in a federal prison in Ayer, Massachusetts.
That would be her husband who is a registered pedophile.
How do you let that happen?
How do you keep someone on your campaign -- while insisting you have the judgment and skills to be president -- who is married to a child molester?
Hillary Doormat Clinton didn't need to insist Huma divorce Weiner (Huma filed for divorce finally in May of 2017), she did need to kick the staffer off her campaign.
Weiner had already been involved in one scandal after another -- one led to his 2011 resignation from Congress; his 2013 mayoral run was destroyed as three more women stepped forward.
All of that was enough to make sure Huma wasn't part of the campaign.
But if she couldn't do it then, she should have done it in August of 2016 -- months before the election as Weiner was involved in yet another scandal.
To be president?
You have to be able to make hard choices.
The inability to remove Huma from her campaign despite Weiner's notorious and repugnant history (which led to his 2011 Congressional resignation) and his notorious and repugnant present (the August 2016 exposure) demonstrated Hillary didn't have what it takes.
It also nailed another hard doubt into her claim of being a feminist -- let alone a champion of women and children.
She wasn't championing the women victimized by Anthony Weiner. And she wasn't championing the poor underage girl either.