Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Democrats’ Harvey Weinstein Problem Solved: Deflect It, Revise It, Bury It

The Democrats’ Harvey Weinstein Problem Solved: Deflect It, Revise It, Bury It

Makes Trump Access Hollywood tape look like a feminist manifesto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=rvVj33TGj8Y

Yesterday, Kemberlee wrote a super post about Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and the myriad allegations of decades of sexual abuse, intimidation, and harassment of actresses, production staff, and apparently any female within arm’s reach.

From reports of Weinstein demanding naked massages from women to actually masturbating in front of women over whom he wielded immense power, Weinstein’s decades of sexual perversion make the Trump Access Hollywood tape that outraged Democrats and the mainstream media look like a feminist manifesto.

Rather than blast their pearl-clutching horror as they did with Trump’s comparatively tame comments about how powerful men can assert their sexual will over less powerful women, the mainstream and entertainment media is struggling to bury the Weinstein story or excuse it away by jumping on the “hey, he’s old school and doesn’t know any better / it’s not rape-rape” apologist train.  That’s the same train that covered up Bill Cosby’s decades of alleged sexual predation, Roman Polanski’s rape and sodomy of a child, and Woody Allen’s alleged behavior with his two adopted daughters.

The entertainment media is all-but-mute on Weinstein.  The late night shows, dedicated to their special brand of Trump Derangement Syndrome, went dark on Weinstein’s sexual predation.

Grabien reports:

One might think that after one of the biggest names in Hollywood — someone who’s made a name for himself working alongside progressive and feminist causes — was shockingly revealed as having covered up decades of sexual abuse, America’s late-night hosts would have a field day.

Instead, Jimmy Fallon, Trevor Noah, Conan O’Brien, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel, and Stephen Colbert came up … dry.

The only mention of Harvey Weinstein on all of the late-night shows combined came on “The Daily Show,” during a segment on Cam Newton. The “joke,” featured above, was literally nothing more than Noah pretending to be Cam Newton and saying to reporters at a press conference, “Look, Harvey Weinstein!”

Contrast this with the treatment these hosts gave Fox News after reports of sexual harassment surfaced. Bill O’Reilly was joyfully raked over the coals show after show.

“Was Bill Cosby too busy” to defend O’Reilly, Seth Meyers mocked.

Jimmy Kimmel, now sometimes referred to in the major media as “America’s conscience,” asked upon learning that Bill O’Reilly was taking a vacation, a vacation “to hell, maybe?”

Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah said Bill O’Reilly was leaving Fox News because he couldn’t keep his penis “in his white Christian pants.”

This isn’t yet another story about leftist hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy entails conducting oneself in a manner that flies in the face of one’s moral or ideological foundation.  The mainstream and entertainment media have no moral compass, so they use ours.  Against us.

Oh, the horror!, they squeal, Trump said something about “grabbing a pu&*y,” he’s the worst misogynist, every-ist/-phobe to draw a breath and take up space on this planet.  Evah!  Weinstein allegedly grabs more than his fair share of . . . lady parts, and it’s not worthy of note much less 24/7 coverage and late night “jokes” aplenty.

Hypocrisy is not the problem here.  The left has revealed, yet again, that they are unprincipled opportunists who not only never let a crisis go to waste but who work in amazing sync to bury scandals involving Democrat mega-donors.

Over at the progressive outlet the Daily Beast, in an article entitled “Yes, Hillary—and the Democrats—Do Have a Harvey Weinstein Problem ,” they determine that the allegations of sexual perversion and predation are not the problem at all.  The problem, as they see it, is that it’s been made public and that Republicans can now make hay with it.

Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable.

Harvey Weinstein represents much more than the reviled coastal elites disdained by Trump voters (despite the fact that Donald Trump is one himself.) Weinstein’s growing scandal represents yet another instance of liberal hypocrisy on issues liberals relentlessly criticize conservatives on. After all, conservatives were allegedly responsible for a War on Women, but yet again we have a liberal man accused of privately mounting his own War on Women, and hiding in part behind his public support of feminist causes and candidates to do so. Conservatives will be quick to point out it’s not the first time, and they’d be right. (Weinstein is even blaming a right-wing conspiracy. Sound familiar?)

That’s right, a “progressive” outlet couldn’t care less about the women this man victimized, they are worried about how it will “play” politically and focus their attention on what Republicans say and do in response.  No surprise to we on the right because we see this cynical opportunism daily from Democrats and the left, but what does it take for “normal” left-leaning and centrist Democrats and Independents to figure out that there is nothing in today’s Democrat party that isn’t measured, weighed, and if necessary buried due to its political impact on “the party”?

Indeed, preserving the party image is all-important.  The DNC, seeking a way out, a way to restore their base’s faith in the party’s commitment to women’s issues, eventually landed on sending the Weinstein DNC donations to feminist groups.

Seriously.  You can’t make this stuff up.

Fox News reports:

The Democratic National Committee will redistribute thousands of dollars of donations from Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein to several women’s groups aligned with Democrats after reports Weinstein has settled sexual harassment lawsuits with a number of women over the years.

“The allegations in the New York Times report are deeply troubling,” Xochitl Hinojosa, the DNC’s communications director, said in a Friday statement. “The Democratic party condemns all forms of sexual harassment and assault.”

Hinojosa said the party will donate more than $30,000 in contributions from Weinstein to EMILY’s List, Emerge America and Higher Heights “because what we need is more women in power, not men like [President] Trump who continue to show us that they lack respect for more than half of America.”

It follows other Democrats transferring donations from Weinstein to charities, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/916400674186973184?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/916401059727335424?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Meanwhile, Amber Tamblyn is urging women, in what I hope is a snarky tweet, to sit down and shut up about any Weinstein horrors they may have endured.  After, all, she says, there’s nothing to gain.

CNN Entertainment reports:

. . . . Tamblyn, who appeared in The Weinstein Company’s 2012 film “Django Unchained,” offered her thoughts on those who came forward in the article.

“Heed the mantra and never forget: Women. Have. Nothing. To. Gain. And. Everything. To Lose. By. Coming. forward,” she tweeted.

Tamblyn’s comment is the type of thing that should enrage, and a mere ten years ago would have enraged, feminists; she’s essentially inverting the old feminist mantra that the “personal is political” and making it the “political is personal.”  Silencing women, she not-so-subtly implies, is essential to “progress.”

That this tweet may have been intended to be ironic doesn’t really matter.  After all, her young female fans, who’ve been taught to parrot what they hear and not to think for themselves, will read it as writ in stone.

There’s a reason that today’s progressives are often referred to as regressives.  They are regressive.  They have not one idea or agenda item that hasn’t failed in some spectacular way, like mass starvation (at best).  They mock the right for clinging to guns, religion, and the 1950’s, yet all the while, they are still attempting to create a world order based on a 1930’s socio-cultural and political rubric of a fascist, communist, or Nazi totalitarianism.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

4th armored div | October 7, 2017 at 7:00 pm

it’s already forgotten, until the next (R) is caught with his pants unzipped.

if people don’t have religion, then everything is permitted, especially if you practice the ‘correct’ politics.

the (D) have no shame, just their hand out.
see the recent elegy to the founder of the mag you only read for the articles – PLAYBOY.

The late night shows, dedicated to their special brand of Trump Derangement Syndrome, went dark on Weinstein’s sexual predation.

That’s to be expected. After all, their main goal is comedy, so this…oh, wait…the goal of late night shows used to be comedy.

Now, their goal appears to be attacking anyone who isn’t them.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 7, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Excellent Reporting Fuzzy!

Have a Happy 5th! (at Legal Insurrection that is!)

Trump was right about the social liberal culture.

I wonder if this explains the left’s demand and celebration of Planned Parenthood et al’s Million Baby Abortion.

The author damages their credibility and renders this entire article moot by completely inverting the meaning of Amber Tamblyn’s tweet. She is NOT telling women to be quiet, she’s telling them to step forward, something she made clear in a follow-up tweet several hours later:

“Let me be emphatically clear. This tweet was for those who want to blame victims. Fellow women: Come. Forward. I will stand beside you.”

This tweet was up nearly 48 hours before “Fuzzy Slipper” posted this article and is only THREE tweets above the quoted and misrepresented one, so it’s not as if the author didn’t have the facts available; they just weren’t interested in facts that would interfere with their desired narrative.

How very….regressive.

I quick perusal of her retweets shows she’s been sharing fellow actresses’ (including known Weinstein victim Rose McGowan) tweets encouraging women who have been preyed upon to step forward, not to shut up to protect the Big Dog Liberal. (She also retweeted fake black guy Shaun King pimping his article that the Las Vegas shooter was “white privilege” because of course.)

What’s most telling about this excursion into partisan hackery is that it indicates an unfamiliarity of the shibboleths of modern feminists that all women are victims of the Patriarchy (dun-dun-DUHN!!) who would have no reason to make up stories about being sexually assaulted.

We are told to “listen and believe” the stories of Columbia’s Mattress Girl and Rolling Stone’s imaginary UVA gang rape victim because shut up. As these fairy tales imploded, feminists flipped and said it didn’t matter that these stories were false because they “raised awareness” of how helpless and victimized women are and thus the lies are fine because shut up.

This article desperately needs revisions and/or retraction. This is #FakeNews and doesn’t belong on a site purporting to be better than the corrupt liberal JournoList Democrat propaganda outlets. Be better.

    DirkBelig, how nice of you to sign up for LI just to rant and rave about a portion of my post that you apparently concocted out of whole cloth.

    As to your point, um, no. I acknowledged that it might be snarky and/or ironic, but my point was that it doesn’t really matter what inflections or connotations Tamblyn intends, today’s young leftists have not only had their ability to experience joy and laughter removed, but they’ve also been carefully trained not to engage in free and independent thought. You can probably discern this from what I wrote if you read it back to yourself out loud. And slowly.

    But again, how nice that you chose to sign up just to rant about something I didn’t say.

      Fuzzy, you’ll need to use smaller words….. 😎

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vzU3TdqUKQ

      DirkBelig in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 11, 2017 at 3:46 am

      Wow. Really? You got criticized for projecting what you wanted to imagine was said by Tamblyn while ignoring anything that countered your desired narrative, so you petulantly reacted like Trump with insults and then doubled down with the baseless accusation, “DirkBelig, how nice of you to sign up for LI just to rant and rave…” (You really have a problem with imagining what people mean, don’t you?)

      Don’t flatter yourself – that’s what your fawning sycophants white knighting you here are for – but I’ve been a longtime LI reader who has occasionally commented here like this from four years (and one day!) ago: https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/south-park-takes-on-zimmerman-case-in-world-war-zimmerman/#comment-479501

      And here’s a March 2015 post responding to someone who didn’t think Kate McKinnon had a chance to be nominated for an Emmy portraying Hillary (which she actually did last month): https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/is-snl-aiming-to-take-down-hillary/#comment-574174

      While your mean girl clique hammered the thumbs-down button and joined in on your insulting diversion tactics, intellectually honest and literate people (that means they know how to read) can see you misrepresented the substance of what Tamblyn said and rather than revise the article, decided to mock the messenger and spew excuses about her generation lacking joy as if that had anything to do with your errors. Yes, kids today are amoral, situationally ethical snowflakes who can’t cope with facts that hurt their feels. So what? (BTW, Tamblyn is a 34-year-old woman and new mother.)

      You flat out claimed, Amber Tamblyn is urging women…to sit down and shut up about any Weinstein horrors they may have endured. After, all, she says, there’s nothing to gain….Silencing women, she not-so-subtly implies, is essential to “progress.

      How can that possibly be true when Tamblyn actually tweeted THREE TWEETS AFTER your cherry-picked and twisted-to-your-desired-narrative example: ““Let me be emphatically clear. This tweet was for those who want to blame victims. Fellow women: Come. Forward. I will stand beside you.

      It can’t. You could probably have discerned this from what I wrote if you read it back to yourself out loud. And slowly. And with more honesty. And less petulent defensiveness. Stop spinning and admit you channeled Michael Moore’s tactics because they served your desires, facts be darned to heck.

        Seriously one of the funniest responses I’ve ever read.

        You place ellipses in place of my words to make your point. That’s hilarious! Illiterate and intellectually dishonest, of course, but given your accusations, rolling on the floor hilarious.

        To recap: you decided to ignore that I had stated quite clearly that Tamblin may have been being snarky or ironic.

        I responded by pointing out that I had said Tamblin may have been being snarky or ironic.

        You respond by clipping out the words that I used in observing that Tamblin may have been snarky or ironic and then rejoiced that your editing out my words somehow proved that I had not said what I very clearly said.

        I’m still giggling.

        I wrote:

        Meanwhile, Amber Tamblyn is urging women, in what I hope is a snarky tweet, to sit down and shut up about any Weinstein horrors they may have endured. After, all, she says, there’s nothing to gain.

        Tamblyn’s comment is the type of thing that should enrage, and a mere ten years ago would have enraged, feminists; she’s essentially inverting the old feminist mantra that the “personal is political” and making it the “political is personal.” Silencing women, she not-so-subtly implies, is essential to “progress.”

        That this tweet may have been intended to be ironic doesn’t really matter. After all, her young female fans, who’ve been taught to parrot what they hear and not to think for themselves, will read it as writ in stone.

        In “proving” that I did not say Tamblin was being snarky or ironic you misquoted me thusly:

        You flat out claimed, “Amber Tamblyn is urging women…to sit down and shut up about any Weinstein horrors they may have endured. After, all, she says, there’s nothing to gain….Silencing women, she not-so-subtly implies, is essential to “progress.”

        So, what is the part of the text you parsed? What goes in between these words: “Amber Tamblyn is urging women” and [your elipsis] … “to sit down and shut up about any Weinstein horrors they may have endured.”

        And what comes after these words: “Silencing women, she not-so-subtly implies, is essential to ‘progress’.”

        You may not be aware that intentionally editing someone’s words to give the impression they said the opposite of what they actually said is not only intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant, but as it turns out in this case, seriously freaking hee-larious!

    “That this tweet may have been intended to be ironic doesn’t really matter. After all, her young female fans, who’ve been taught to parrot what they hear and not to think for themselves, will read it as writ in stone….”

    You spent EIGHT paragraphs trying to denigrate ONE paragraph of Fuzzington’s piece, but ignored the other THIRTY SIX paragraphs.

    Then, in one paragraph, Fuzzington blows your one paragraph out of the water, by writing:

    “As to your point, um, no. I acknowledged that it might be snarky and/or ironic, but my point was that it doesn’t really matter what inflections or connotations Tamblyn intends, today’s young leftists have not only had their ability to experience joy and laughter removed, but they’ve also been carefully trained not to engage in free and independent thought. You can probably discern this from what I wrote if you read it back to yourself out loud. And slowly.”

    “Belig” is slang for someone so intoxicated that they can become a bit violent or offensive. It’s your handle – you use it. Un-belig, and read Fuzzington’s piece to yourself out loud. And slowly.

      And another swing and a miss for Fuzzy’s Fans as they’d rather follow her down the path of ignominy than allow milady’s gaffes to be illuminated. Just as she’s quite content to beclown herself rather than own up to her projection, you’re beclown carring yourself with similarly silly sophistries.

      FACT CHECK: DirkBelig is short for Dirk Belligerent, the nom de cyber I adopted when I first went online 20 years ago. Why only one L? A: Because when I created my AOL handle, I misspelled it. Whoopsie! So I rolled with it. (DirkBellig looks odd to me, too.) Never heard the urban slang definition before.

      How about you un-beclown yourself and learn to read reality instead of fantasies? Yes, liberals are annoying SJW twerps, but if you can’t make that case without lying like, well, LIBERALS, then you’re no better. Be better.

Actually why is ashley “nasty woman” judd getting a pass? That screech was one of the leading screechers at the pussy hat stupidity.
According to her, they (women) knew about harvey for a LONG TIME and talked about it among themselves. Talk about a two faced lying screech, and the mfm is giving her kudos for being quoted. Where were you ashley screech when you knew about this sexual harassment and never reported it? Why did you let other women be degraded by the predator you knew all about and never took your stand publicly?

So let me see if I get this straight. The DNC is now clutching its pearls at the concept that it received big bucks from the contributor who has been giving them big bucks for years. In a superficial attempt to whitewash their criminal association, they are going to send this ‘dirty’ money to feminist organizations, who will then DONATE THE MONEY BACK, therefore washing it of the criminal stink and rendering it pure and innocent again.

Money laundered in this fashion does not lose the stink.

Isnt it time to discuss the new blacklist in hollywood?

Where are those two useless jackasses ryan and mcconnell on this?

It seems to me that the women’s organizations should reject the money for the same reason. It continues the chain of hush money. Send it to a police fund for widows and orphans maybe or the Red Crescent. If the women’s groups publicized the rejection, they would get 100-times as much in new donations. This won’t occur to them though.

Harvey Weinstein at the January 2017 Women’s March in Park City, Utah.

https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/916103297097961472/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend