All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Hillary's election would have shelved Weinstein story

Amanda Carpenter threw cold water on the media feeding frenzy over the revelation that for decades Harvey Weinstein preyed on women in Hollywood.

She pointed out that if we elected Hillary president, he would be home free. The New York Times would have protected him just as it did in 2004 when Sharon Waxman tried to break the news.



But Trump is president, and Weinstein is expendable. So the Times dusted off a 13-year-old story and poof, he is gone.

Hooray for the Times, right?

Well, except for the part where he continued to victimize women for 13 years.

And I am no dummy. Many of them went willingly. You see, this was an open secret in Hollywood, and some women were willing to make the trade.

But at least one of them was not, and he molested her. He molested many women. That is what Hollywood moguls do. And it is wrong.

However, politicians have been covering for Hollywood moguls and celebrities for a century now. They have it down to a science. And newspapers like the Times are willing to spike the story for a price.

On CNN, presenter Brooke Baldwin asked Carpenter about the political silence over Weinstein who was a rainmaker for Democratic Party candidates as her raised millions for the likes of Obama and the Clintons.

Carpenter said:
I think it's pathetic, number one. But I think we also have to look at why all this information is coming to light now. I seriously wonder if Hillary Clinton were President and Harvey Weinstein were the uber-connected powerful Democratic donor with access to the highest most powerful people in the world, if this would have come out now? Because again and again when these cases of sexual abusers who enjoy a lot of power, these dominoes don't start tumbling down until they start to lose that power. We saw that with Roger Ailes. All this information came out after he left Fox News. We found out about all the settlements.
Harvey Weinstein paid out eight settlements over many, many years. People knew this, and now they are coming out he needs therapy. Like he didn't need it after he lost the first few million dollars or whatever it was. So, I think the key to uncovering a lot of this information is getting these guys to feel like they are losing power and influence, and that's when we find out all the information.
Fellow guest Rachel Sklar objected. She should have kept her trap shut.
SKLAR: I'm not entirely sure I would agree with that. Roger Ailes was certainly very powerful at the time that she's stunning revelations came down. And then further revelations of settlements came out subsequently. But I find it so strange that people keep on trying to name Hillary Clinton as though she's culpable when --
CARPENTER: Hillary Clinton is not president right now because she enabled sexual abuse, let's be clear on that. 
SKLAR: If George Clooney and Ben Affleck who were working with Harvey Weinstein for many, many years, both have explicitly come out and said that they are just learning of this now. I don't think it's fair to impune Hillary Clinton. 
CARPENTER: Hillary Clinton has a track record of being slow on the draw. Let's be frank, during the Clinton administration she covered up for her husband. She was calling Monica Lewinsky a crazy lunatic.
(CROSSTALK)
BALDWIN: We are talking about Harvey Weinstein. 
CARPENTER: This is how Trump recovered the Access Hollywood tapes. Had she not done that [covered for her husband's sexual predations] he would not have had the card to play against her. Just look at what happened in the campaign. 
SKLAR: I don't know what to say about this. I think this is a red herring and a distraction from discussing the fact --
CARPENTER: It's why we have Donald Trump.
Bam.

Carpenter is correct. Bill Clinton survived his scandal. His wife thought she did. Democrats in 2008 decided they were not going to go through another Whitewater-Lewinsky-Constant Scandal administration and went with No Drama Obama.

Now about Weinstein, they knew. They did not care.

The victims eventually told themselves well, at least I got an Oscar out of the deal. And the odd thing was, Weinstein backed movies that allowed women to shine.

He got away with it for decades, and he would have gotten away with it, too, if not for us meddling deplorables. We messed things up by electing Trump president, which meant Weinstein no longer was politically powerful. The Times threw him under the bus.

We shall see if he is prosecuted.

***

Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.




Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.



Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.

14 comments:

  1. Lather, Rinse, Repeat

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Hillary has a track record of being slow on the draw" hints at how 'out of the power structure' Hillary is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This isn't just a Hollywood thing. I've worked with doctors who's entire approach to everything revolves around breaking down the self esteem of those around him, whether male or female. This type constantly tries to get others to do unethical things in order to have ammunition to use against them in future situations, to gain power over them. Like gang leaders do.

    There are different kinds of power. That gotten by inspiring others, and that gotten by coercion are two of them. People who don't have faith in their own power to inspire learn to use coercion, and once that line is crossed it corrupts them even further.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also agree with your supposition, Don, that the downfall of Weinstein was a shot across Clinton's bow - she is embarrassing the Democrats on a regular basis. Every time she spouts off someone writes an article titled: "Go Away Hillary".

    This is the real reason it took so long for her to respond. Would she go all VRWC and defend him or would she go all hypocrite and feign ignorance bordering on idiocy considering her decades long friendship? Which lie would serve her best?

    She waited to see how strong the case was against him before responding, and decided she couldn't use VRWC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rumor has it that weinstein will be treated at the roman polanski treatment center in Europe. May take decades before he is cured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice not ONE liberal voice is outraged that he took a private plane? How many species will go extinct?

      Delete
  6. I read elsewhere that the NYT went with the article after Weinstein came out as an unabashed Israel supporter and was going to make a movie out of Leon Uris' book, Mila 18.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thomas Lifson has written an article in American Thinker which suggests WHY Weinstein was 'exposed.' The suggestion was sent to him from another AT contributor, Rabbi Aryeh Spero:
    My opinion: He was no longer truly one of their own. At the annual Algemeiner Dinner in NYC, Weinstein openly praised the Israelis and how they are willing to fight. He said he loves Israel...and admires how the Israelis use weapons to protect themselves. He contrasted the Israelis with the misfortune of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto who did not, unfortunately, he said, have guns. Indeed, he announced, as he had a few months previously, that he was in the midst of preparing and making a movie about the Warsaw Ghetto. He loved fighting Jews, he said.

    Nothing irks and riles the N.Y. Times more than someone who is a proud, vocal supporter of Israel, believes in Jews fighting in their own defense, physically and with guns...especially if that person is a liberal and Democrat. That cannot be allowed! And to boot, equating Israel's efforts against the Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians with the Warsaw Ghetto. They could never allow that. No way! So they brought him down. They have dossiers on many they don't use until they need to make an example.

    According to your blog post, Weinstein said he was temporarily going to stop making movies...in other words, including the Warsaw Ghetto movie. That was the response they wanted, the quid pro quo. And his repentance for abusing women was, get this, to work against the NRA. That's his mea culpa? But you see, their problem was his position on guns. So that's the mea culpa. Sexual sins are forgiven if one agrees to work against gun ownership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That makes a lot of sense, Kitty.

      It seemed very strange to me that Weinstein would get the axe just because he molested women. There are so very many highly placed Democrats who are molesters, deviants, and/or abusers. Weinstein was a very good bundler & could be depended upon to deliver many more millions- so why kick him off his perch?

      Now it makes sense. He's too pro-Israel, and too pro-guns. He may not even wholeheartedly support the Palestinians! So he's got to go!

      Delete
  8. Keep in mind, Carpenter was chief groupie for Ted Cruz.

    "Carpenter is correct. Bill Clinton survived his scandal."

    Actually, he didn't. Willie was something of a pariah before the Bush family rehabilitated his image.

    But people haven't forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The next shoe is a report about the democrat politicians whose sexual whims were accommodated by Hollywood moguls providing starlets.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A little bird seems to be telling me that there are a lot of very nervous Democrat elites in the wake of this scandal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The filthy pig Weinstein will never be
    prosecuted. A military coup will occur
    this winter, by Obama and Deep State
    sleepers placing Hilary in power this
    spring. The "Deplorables" are going to be genocided.

    ReplyDelete