Clinton Campaign Accused Of Knowing About Weinstein Rape Allegations But Continuing His Use As Fundraiser

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziActress Lena Dunham has gone public with an allegation that she warned Hillary Clinton’s campaign that Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was a known rapist and saying that it was wrong to use him as a core fundraiser for Clinton.  Dunham accused Clinton campaign deputy communications manager Kristina Schake and Clinton campaign member spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod of being expressly warned about Weinstein.  Given the renewed questions over the treatment of women allegedly assaulted by Bill Clinton, the allegation fulfilled a perception of Clinton as claiming to fight for women while giving campaign interests priority in dealing with sex offenders within her inner circle.  Clinton is still haunted by her reference to women accusing her husband as “bimbo eruptions.”  Schake and Elrod have basically called Dunham a liar and said that she never made such a warning.

Dunham said that she first objected to Schake about Weinstein role in the campaign.  She said that she told her that “I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point. 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 said that Schake assured her that she would speak with campaign manager Robby Mook.

When there was no response, Dunham says that she went to Elrod with the same information.  Clinton campaign communications director Nick Merrill denies ever being told of such allegations as do Schake and Elrod.

205 thoughts on “Clinton Campaign Accused Of Knowing About Weinstein Rape Allegations But Continuing His Use As Fundraiser”

  1. OT – Assange asks

    Julian Assange
    🔹‏ @JulianAssange
    2h2 hours ago

    Is the GOP game plan to eat up all Trump’s popular political capital with tax cuts for the super rich, giveaways to AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Israel, etc, then install Mike Pence?

    1. Probably not since Gary Cohen and Mnuchin are also architects of the bill. Seems like Trump has confidence in them and especially Mnuchin. Trump wants this to get done before Christmas and is pushing Congress on this bill. Trump is a faux populist.

      1. SWM – agree that he is not a real populist — but his most of his ardent supporters thought he was. And the rest voted for him because they consider HRC to be dangerous. As a friend of mine – a 72 yo lifelong Dem put it – HRC is evil, Trump is a maybe evil.

    2. This tax cut will help Trump and his family and especially so if he is worth as much as he says.

  2. Hoo-hoo-hoo, go on, take the money and run. – Steve Miller Band

    What is it they say about democracy only being effective IF the public is well-informed and able to think critically and independently for themselves? And yet we were told to believe that hardly anyone in Hollywood or the Democratic party – and certainly not Hillary Clinton – knew how bad Weinstein was until they all found out about in the news reports just like everyone else. Wasn’t that Barack Obama’s favorite line when asked what he knew about the various scandals in his “scandal-free” administration?

    1. Oh no, George, she’s mere annotator:

      “Nelson admits she did make notes to the inscription,” ABC News tells us. “But the message was all Roy Moore.”

      “Beverly, he signed your yearbook,” ABC News reporter Tom Llamas says.

      “He did sign it,” she replies.

      “And you made some notes underneath.”

      “Yes,” Nelson says.

      Pinocci-Nelson, indeed.

  3. I have no way of knowing what Lena said or didn’t say unless she has some evidence to back it up. We do know that Weinstein’s behavior was known to many people for over 20 years. So it would seem odd that Clinton, who had access to a lot of money to research her donors, would not have known about Weinstein’s behavior.

    It is therefore odd that women would believe Clinton, who additionally has committed war crimes against black and brown women in other nations, is some kind of feminist freedom fighter. She has excused rape and threatened women who were raped by her husband. She is not a feminist, let alone a feminist freedom fighter.

    Also, Trump is an abuser of women (just so you don’t think I excuse it if it’s Trump). I hope people will wise up and stop accepting abusers as their “leaders” and champions. They are neither.

  4. I’m of the opinion the mania with anything Clinton will be an active matter of discourse come the 22nd century.

  5. If Elrod and Schake are part of the Center for American Progress crowd (CAP is funded by corporations, the Waltons and tech moguls like Gates) I, personally, have no faith in their purported concern about women. The career that lifted the most women into financial security was teaching. CAP’s V.P. of education was an executive with TFA, which critics describe as an organization working to de-professionalize teaching.

      1. Podesto and Jeb Bush, appearing on the same dais, asked donors to contribute to candidates who would work to privatize public education. It’s expected of Repubs but, an affront to the nation (and particularly Dem. rank and file). What better way to divide the country than to have various religious groups, evangelicals, Muslims etc. and for-profit school chains unaccountable to the public, training the next generation.
        Gates and the Waltons spent $1 bil. each to privatize schools over the past decade. Gates gave CAP $2 mil. from 2013-2015. Zuckerberg and Gates are investors in the largest for-profit seller of schools-in-a-box.

        1. “The state has long been aware of the urgency and the depth of the all-too-preventable literacy crisis, and yet it has not implemented a single targeted literacy program to remedy this crisis,” said Mark Rosenbaum, director of Public Counsel’s opportunity under law division, according to Education Week.
          National education data shows that California is one of 14 states the performed significantly lower than national averages on a 2015 reading assessment.

          Of course you would oppose citizens choosing how their education tax dollars work. Only a socialist would be stupid enough to demand taking other people’s money to fund failing public institutions.

          1. In an oligarchy or under colonialism, servants rely on the “good graces” of their overlords for food, education, healthcare,… Ivanka literally referred to food as an “investment” in the poor.

            1. TRUMP: Indeniably [sic] it’s very expensive to raise children, and that’s if you’re a stay-at-home parent, who’s investing in potentially after school activities, Mommy and Me classes, food and whatever it is that they think is the best investment to help their family and their children.

              Context matters. She’s talking about how families manage their budgets. This is not that difficult.

              By the way, I was unable to find the source where she was saying it was an investment in the poor. Perhaps you have that available?

              1. A quote that corroborates my statement. Reprinting the precise wording, if anything, makes the person saying it, look worse. A people’s court, rather than your or my opinion will be what matters.
                A Rockefeller heir involved in politics notoriously had no idea what the cost of a loaf of bread was. Being out of touch is congenital with an aristocracy.

              2. A tutorial about families with median incomes of $50-$60,000 and budgeting, from a celebrity whose website advised spending $300 per place setting for the holidays.
                Ivanka could advise Americans how to budget for cake instead of bread.

                1. For someone that continuously rails against the oligarchs controlling this country, you have no idea how you’re carrying their water. They manipulate the Left to attack the Right and the Right to attack the Left. They don’t lose elections because they still control the lawmakers, regardless of the party in power.

                  1. Three ways in which I don’t carry the oligarchs’ water (1) Voting Republican i.e. ALEC. (2) Joining the chorus to abolish estate taxes. (3) Stumping for regressive taxes.
                    What are the ways you don’t carry their water?

                    1. Go to ALEC Exposed and check out which party is most represented by ALEC membership.

                    2. #1. By not being under self-incurred tutelage of the state.
                      #2. By not being a useful idiot of any political party.
                      #3. By defending the natural rights of everyone equally.
                      #4. By demanding our government function within the limits of the constitution and separation of powers.

                    3. Oily,
                      “Self-incurred tutelage” of an aristocracy, is not what the founding fathers intended but, the 400 richest families in the U.S. embrace it and further it with their political spending.

                  2. (4) Contributing to candidates like Paul Ryan, whose family lived on Social Security after his father died and who attended a university that the public created as an affordable alternative to legacy enrollment schools.
                    (5) Signing Republican petitions aimed at voter suppression.

                    1. Linda – what exactly do you consider voter suppression? In this context, it is rather vague and hard to deal with.

                    2. Paul, Linda is a typical fool. She’s referring to voter ID laws. Apparently it’s too much to ask someone of color to produce an ID when they vote but not when they travel by air, buy booze, drive, etc.

                    3. andrewworkshop – don’t forget a visit the White House, DoJ, etc., all require photo ID.

            2. In an oligarchy or under colonialism, servants rely on the “good graces” of their overlords for food, education, healthcare,…

              It’s good to know your beginning to see the negative results of state control of goods and services. It’s a process. Well done!

  6. Dunham’s career is tanking. I think this is a publicity stunt to get in the newz Didn’t she say she was leaving the country if Trump won?

    1. She did say that. I didn’t vote for trump, but I still think the US will be a better country if lena duh-numb moves her fat @$$ out.

          1. Paul, NZ has very strict immigration criteria and i doubt they would qualify =) Maybe Georgia or Armenia

            1. Autumn – I know Canada has tightened things up. Issac couldn’t get back in. 🙂

  7. How do you tie the Trumps into that; Just by saying it. Stupid is as stupid does but your in the wrong forum for propandizing without facts. and objective thinking. Robo Clone Collective machine parts should really avoid this place it’s full of people who do think and use reason independently.

    1. Her husband would do a snake if Hillary would hold it straight for him and Hillary would pick it’s pockets for loose change.

  8. Didn’t Clinton accept money from another harasser-donor: Donald Trump?

    Just terrible.

    1. Terrible for Clinton. She could care less as the chief proponent for victimizing women in the country. Trump like all NY business people kept the Democrat machine happy in order to stay in business. False premise less facts lead to incorrect conclusions. It’s just terrible how DNC types cannot have the morals values and standards of decent people.

      1. “Trump like all NY business people kept the Democrat machine happy in order to stay in business.”

        How principled.

  9. Is Hilary going to trash Weinstein’s victims like she did her husbands?

      1. Ken’s-Da you gots da to’s be’s da most da annoying da contributor da in’s dee’s post’s da.

      2. I haven’t thought of Melanie since Lay Down Candles was a hit in the sixties whatever caused you to bring her up. Trumpt doesn’t need to trash his opposition. They do a fine job by themselves or should I say their programmers answer that need. Common in those who follow dialectical materialistic thinking.

        1. My Dad took me to a Melanie concert when I was a teenager. Sat in the front row. Unforgettable.

          But you’re right – she doesn’t seem to fit this topic.

    1. Depends on how much she is paid. I am so glad I both discovered objective reasoning and what the founders intended for us. Becoming an independent self governing thinking and responsible citizen instead of a programmed purveryor of nonsense propaganda which includes not only the left but it’s right wing the RINOs.

      Looks like IB has taken the same route. Paul does as well along with absent Squeaky Fromm….to name a few . Too many are just lockstep goose steppers.

  10. Minnesota will replace Frankin with another left wing dem. After this republican gets elected in Alabama, the senate will probably toss him out and he will be replaced by a republican who follows the establishment party line.

    1. Probably, but it is not at all clear that they knew about Weinstein’s bad habits.

      1. There were da rumors. Hills ignored em. Denial was her thang. Some of these folks deny what T rump did to da women. Denial protects ya from da truth.

      2. LOL! Somehow Clinton knew Trump was urinating on prostitutes in Russia but had absolutely no idea Weinstein has been a serial sexual abuser for decades.

        Now there’s some critical thinking for you.

      1. So here we have on-the-street-interviews of Hillary supporters (more like ‘cult followers’) who believe the ‘Russia stole the election from Hillary narrative’ as some kind of absolutely true ‘objective reality’ without any factual basis for it except what the left-leaning media and Hillary campaign surrogates have been pounding into their feeble minds since Hillary lost the election. Yep, that explains it.

        God bless America and cable ‘news’ networks.

  11. Of course,that does not excuse Hillary or anyone else turning a blind eye to alleged bad conduct by Weinstein, if that is what happened. It’s nice to see that Professor Turley has not “forgotten” about Hillary. here on this blog. I’d hate to see the withdrawal symptoms of many of the posters here if they were deprived of their periodic anti-Hillary blog post by Professor Turley. It’s funny to see how the Republicans have much more uses for Hillary that the Democrats these days. Hillary should slink away into the dustbin of history.

  12. If Weinstein became a Republican and ran for office in Alabama, he might be protected. After all, at this point his bad behavior is only “alleged” bad behavior. Generally, it’s not politically correct within the Republican party to believe women who accuse high ranking republicans of engaging in predatory behavior unless the accused Republican actually admits to engaging in that behavior, which is also politically incorrect behavior for most Republicans..

    1. Doofus,…
      This crosses party lines. The Democrats, and for that matter the feminists, went out of their way to defend Bill Clinton and discredit those who complained about his “alleged” bad behavior.
      They were often the same people who tried to “Bork” Clarence Thomas.
      Or calling for the heads of anyone associated with the Tailhook convention, whether or not they committed any offenses.
      “A Tale of Two Paulas” deals with the Tailhook and the aftermath….who benefited, and those keelhauled because it was politically expedient.
      You’re either very young, or you have a short, selective memory.

      1. My comment deals with current events. I agree that Democrats protected Clinton. I agree about Tailhook. I don’t think that the allegations against Clarence Thomas were false. We can go back farther, to JFK. No question it has crossed party lines in the past. Right now, Democrats generally are moving in a positive direction. Republicans, not so much.

        1. Da republicans don’t want to deal T rump’s sex problems or his health problems. Just get da taxes done before anybody knows what is really going.

          1. BillMcW,..
            I’ve never seen accusations that JFK sexually assaulted any of the women.
            The scandal alone would have destroyed him, given the standards and expectations of that era.
            Even if JFK were given a pass on the affairs themselves, his affair with a mobster’s mistress ( or former mistress) would have done him in.

          2. My understanding is that JFK didn’t assault women in the manner that Weinstain is accused of assaulting women. With JFK, it was more of an “expectation” that you would put out for JFK and perhaps some of his friends. A different form of “take one for the team”, or “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do to prevent JFK from getting a headache.”


        2. Right now, Democrats generally are moving in a positive direction.

          Think rock and a hard place. There is no other direction for them to go.

          1. Olly,…
            – You may have been in the Navy when Tailhook was a political football.
            Did you hear much in the way of talk (among other Navy people) about how that “investigation” was handled?

            1. I was Tom. And I was here in San Diego at the time. We were not surprised by the incident(s) but we knew we were in for some more military cultural changes towards good order and discipline. We always knew lower level officers were going to take the brunt of the punishments while the senior officers would get a pass. Yes, there’s politics in the military.

        3. Doofus,
          Thanks for your reply.
          I thought that Anita Hill’s accusations might have been valid.
          But because of the timing of those allegations, and the fact that she followed Clarence Thomas to another job, and that the accusation was essentially that he told off-color jokes, I didn’t think that those allegations should be a factor in confirming him( or voting not to confirm).
          JFK was fortunae in that there was an unwritten rule back then that politicians got a pass when it came to their “affairs”.
          And JFK was popular with the press.
          Kennedy’s “active” “love life” was an open secret with the press and others, but the public was in the dark at the time.
          Since JFK skillfully exploited his public image as a youthful, faithful family man, he was fortunate to live in an era where he could have it both ways.
          I guess I’m surprized now that the targets of the allegations are in both parties.
          I think there was that history of “not going after your own” for a long time; now it looks like everybody’s fair game, political advantage or expediency won’t save the accused.
          DC could end up as a ghost town.😉

  13. Dunham has her own sexual abuse problems, she admitted to molesting her sister. So, this is who people are going to listen to? Really??? That is assuming Dunham actually warned them because she is clearly not Weinstein’s type so she wouldn’t know from personal experience. She would have to be relying on gossip and then have access to two of the top people in Hillary’s campaign, where she warned them about Weinstein.

    Personally, I think Dunham is a fabulist.

    1. Paul:
      But most of Hollywood thinks she’s fabulous for that sex-obsessed show she produced for HBO. Lena has issues and I would take anything she says with some degree of skepticism. That said, everyone knew about Weinstein and Hillary likely didn’t care as long as the money rolled in. She never care where it comes from. She’s a grifter.

      1. mespo, My thoughts exactly. Dunham has been eviscerated for supporting a rapist writer on her staff and this seems like deflection to me. And, Clinton is indeed a soulless grifter who would have taken money from Charles Manson.

        1. The trifecta – Dumb, Dumber, and Spineless. Mensa boy, I gave you top billing out of respect for your intellect.

          1. YNOT – you are not moving the conversation forward, only insulting people. Doesn’t say much about your debate style.

            1. Even Ken’s da da da comments are far more of a contribution that this YNOT idiot.

            1. Your an idiot. No you are. No you. Uh uh you are. No you are. You da idiot. Nuh uh. You are. OMG. Grow the eff up.

      2. Mespo,..
        I caught part of her HBO show once, featuring her partially naked.
        I’m not really familiar with her work….was/ is her show a horror show?
        I’m not sure if that’s the effect she was going for, but…..

          1. mespo – there is nothing about Dunham that would attract me to her in any state of undress. Actually, I would have to wash my eyes for a week.

  14. It’s not that the ‘rest of Hollywood’ supported Clinton so much as any level headed person simply knew that as bad as Clinton is, she is less of a train wreck than Trump. This is what you get in an oligarchy, the lesser of evils, not the better of choices. America needs to do what the successful democracies do, eliminate private money from campaigns. Two billion dollars was spent bringing us these mutts.

    1. The rest of Hollywood is a cesspool of mostly high school-educated (or film school educated) prostituting, self-indulgent exhibitionists masquerading as artists and political activists. Add a sexual predator to that mix and you have a fox among largely willing chickens whose morals only kick in once the checks quit rolling. Hollywood Babylon is an insult to Babylon.

      1. All of what you said and much, much, more applies to Trump well beyond how it applies to anyone else. And you elected that pathological lying sack of sh*t to the White House.

        1. I think Rain Man’s underwear are riding up his ass. Time to go to KMart.

          1. Rain Man’s sister. This is a photo. The Clinton’s took millions from him. You could show Trump in photo’s w/ Bill Clinton w/ the same message.

            1. Yes the Clinton’s are grifters but so are the Trumps. Trump and Clinton were both pals with Jeffrey Epstein. Clinton is a private citizen and Trump is POTUS and is trying to block the lawsuits of the women he assaulted.

        2. I had no idea you knew him so well and that Trump was a predator. Seems the American electorate already ruled on the issue and issac and his cronies lost. Try again.

      2. Hey, give Trump a chance. Calling him a self-indulgent exhibitionist masquerading as a political activist is totally totally totally untrue. And he’s certainly not a sexual-predator fox among willing chickens. Hey.

        1. No fox would wear a comb over. Nor would any chick be willing if the fox did wear a comb over.

        1. YNOT – again you are not moving the conversation forward, just trying to insult people. And this isn’t even a decent insult.

  15. Kind of funny that after Dunham alerted key people with the campaign of the problem that she and the rest of Hollywood would continue to support Clinton.

    1. Thuglicans elected Putin’s fanboy and are now backing a pedo. Be proud of who you are.

    2. Zambini,..
      – There seems to be a significant segment of Hollywood sympathetic to people like Roman Polanski.
      What Polanski did could have resulted in a life sentence….when the slap- on- the -wrist plea bargain was in question, Polanski took off.
      He seems to have his supporters in Hollywood, and in Europe.
      The Lovable Tramp had a thing for high school-age girls, but I don’t think that hurt his career or his standing in Hollywood.
      Artistic licentiousness, I guess.

      1. How about da beauty pageant licentiousness of T rump. Prowlin da young teens dressing rooms and bragging about it ain’t kosher except to da Roy boy fans.

Comments are closed.