Hillary Clinton: ‘I was appalled’ by the ‘intolerable’ Harvey Weinstein revelations

Embed from Getty Images

I continue to find it mind-boggling to see how Hillary Clinton was repeatedly attacked for Harvey Weinstein’s actions. If actual industry insiders like George Clooney and Jeffrey Katzenberg had very little idea of the extent of Weinstein’s predatory behavior, why would Hillary Clinton have known? Clinton issued a statement earlier this week, flat-out condemning Weinstein, and it still wasn’t enough. The fact that a now-private citizen took five days to speak about Weinstein was apparently the latest “thing” for a lot of people (“Deplorables”). So she had to talk about it again. During a CNN interview, Clinton was asked about Weinstein:

Hillary Clinton said in a CNN interview Wednesday that she was “sick” and “shocked” to learn of sexual misconduct allegations against Hollywood mogul and longtime Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein, adding she will give away his past contributions to her political campaigns to charity.

“I was appalled,” Clinton said of the accusations. “It was something that was just intolerable in every way. And, you know, like so many people who’ve come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who I and many others had known in the past.”

Speaking to Fareed Zakaria as part of her current book tour, the former Democratic presidential nominee acknowledged she “probably would have” called Weinstein a friend prior to hearing about his alleged misconduct.

“People in Democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support,” she said. “And I think these stories coming to light now — and people who never spoke out before having the courage to speak out — just clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged in cannot be tolerated.”

Regarding Weinstein’s donations, Clinton said it wasn’t possible to return the money but she would give it to charity.

“What other people are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they’re going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that,” she said. “I give 10 percent of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There’s no — there’s no doubt about it.”

[From EW]

This reminds me so much of George Clooney’s surprising candor, the give-and-take about “well, of course there were rumors” versus “but he produces a lot of films that wouldn’t get made otherwise.” For Clinton, it was “well, he’s one of the biggest Democratic party donors in the country.” I saw an excellent tweet this week, which was basically like “I can’t believe we knew Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator all this time and we still elected him president.” It’s so true. That’s what Clinton got too – they treated her like she was a sitting president and it was her responsibility to speak about this.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

113 Responses to “Hillary Clinton: ‘I was appalled’ by the ‘intolerable’ Harvey Weinstein revelations”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. angie0717 says:

    Go away Hillary. Just go away.

    • kaye says:

      how about you go first, troll?
      back under your bridge, please and thank you.

      seriously 2017–i can’t even.

      • Llamas says:

        She’s allowed to dislike Hillary without being insulted…

        I swear, sometimes it feels like you can’t have a different opinion on this website without being attacked.

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        Uggghhh. Stop. Please. Trying to squash dissent through intimidation sounds an awful lot like………dare I say it?…….nah. No need.

        You can respond maybe with why you think HRC shouldn’t go away instead?

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        How about Hillary Clinton shouldn’t go away because she has every right to speak as

        a) a person
        b) a US citizen
        c) the person being asked about this by reporters
        d) former US Senator
        e) former Secretary of State
        f) longtime advocate for women’s rights
        g) current bestselling book author who is on book
        promotional tour *just as this story hits the news*
        h) former Democratic nominee who was given some financial
        support by Harvey Weinstein (support that was miniscule
        relative to the support given the Republicans by the Mercer
        family and Koch brothers, by the way)

        You don’t want to hear what she has to say? Turn off the TV and don’t buy her book. Just don’t tell her to shut up.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        @Llamas-on this site there can be no criticism of HRC, ever. It’s ridiculous.

      • whatWHAT? says:

        criticism is one thing, but this poster didn’t criticize her, just told her to “go away”…which makes no sense because it’s not like the writers of Celebitchy came to the poster’s house and forced her to read their post about Hillary.

        she CHOSE to come to this site and she CHOSE to click on this story just so she could say something snarky.

        perhaps SHE should “go away” and then she won’t be forced to read about HRC.

        Just a thought.

      • kaye says:

        thanks to @Who ARE These People? who could be more cogent than the rage filled comment that i left–because seriously, go away if all you came to say is telling HRC to go away–seriously. what garbage. again, i would like to offer a more nuanced response, but i can’t say it better than it’s been said.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Ah kaye but you didn’t hear what I said aloud to my screen first! : )

      • Joy says:

        Omg someone who doesn’t think Hillary hung the moon! ATTACK!

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Look carefully at some of the dubious usernames, folks. Notice how some of the same people who have been popping in for a while to trash Hillary, trash the Obamas, say negative things about the national anthem protestors, or try to portray Trump and his supporters as ‘not that bad’ are completely silent on the post about conservatives attacking Rose McGowan for coming forward about her abuse. Hmmm….

      • CynicalAnn says:

        @Otaku Fairy: I’ve been here for years. And I trash Trump at every opportunity I get. I also voted for HRC. But on this site, as you demonstrate here by saying we “trash the Obamas” blah blah blah (and a bunch of other stuff which I’ve never done) if there’s any hint what we don’t worship HRC you guys pile on. It’s absurd.

      • milla says:

        Srsly? Anyone who dislikes her is a troll? She got support cos the other guy was not an option not cos she is this amazing woman. She does not have to talk about this and she shouldn’t. Just reminds me of her husband and what he did.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        @CynicalAnn: I wasn’t talking about you. You’re a regular and not one of the those who always has to take the more Trump-positive positions on these threads in order to come across as contrarian. There’s definitely been an influx of Cult 45 as of late.

      • whatWHAT? says:

        “She does not have to talk about this and she shouldn’t.”

        well, she didn’t bring it up. she was asked about it. should she have answered “no comment”? how do you think people would have responded to that answer?

        as cr said down below, she said nothing (initially) and she got attacked. she answers, she gets attacked. for some, this woman can NEVER win, and it’s those people who are coming at her and telling her to “go away”. again, no one is being forced to read this page or this post.

        and, frankly, I think she IS pretty amazing. Perfect? No. but amazing? Yes, definitely. she’s faced so much bias and criticism her whole life (read about her law school days and how she was treated by the male students) and yet…she persisted. she was, quite possibly, the MOST qualified candidate our country has ever seen and, if she were a man, would have won in a landslide, Benghazi or not…emails or not… SO MUCH of the hatred toward her is because she’s a successful woman who has not cowered in the face of a little opposition, and because she’s refused to “know her place”. no, she’s not perfect, but she’s a HELL of a lot better than so many give her credit for, and she does NOT deserve a LOT of the criticism shoved her way.

      • Ashamed 2 b a FL Girl says:

        To Kaye & Who are these people…

        All the thanks!

      • angie0717 says:

        I have HC fatigue! The Dems need to rebuild and DT committed/ incarcerated. No rebuiling or election ptsd remedy can happen w HC still so visible and DT in office. Have the last 10 months not shown us this? Holy smokes I am so fatigued… !

    • Snazzy says:

      She was asked about it and answered
      It’s not like she held a press conference specifically on this topic

    • Andy says:

      How can she go away when you keep dragging her back into the conversation?? Republicans everywhere have been absolutely gleeful about this Weinstein thing and have somehow decided that Hillary is complicit? This has NOTHING to do with her. It’s just another one of the daily absurdities we have to endure, and I’m Canadian by the way!! SMH.

      • Llamas says:

        I consider myself on the right and I can tell you I am certainly not “gleeful” about Weinstein. I really haven’t seen anyone who is “gleeful” about Weinstein assaulting people. He is a horrible excuse for a human being and that seems to be the consensus.

        I’m not sure if I am considered one of the Trump supporting commenters on here. I tend to take a more moderate stance with my comments but in this day and age I can see how a moderate stance could be taken as Trump supporting. Not supporting every (or almost every) aspect of the liberal agenda does not always equate to being a Trump fan. Political ideologies are not a good measure of someone as a whole. I mean, Stalin = far left, Nazis = far right, Weinstein = Democrat, Trump = republican. If all these examples suddenly went to the opposite side of they political spectrum they would still be awful. These people are horrible because they are fundamentally horrible people, NOT because of their political identity.

      • magnoliarose says:


        You seem to be a 45 supporter or maybe not. I don’t know, but 45 has made it impossible to be in a gray area. Hate or like him. There is no middle with a man like him.

        Most of the moderate to left crowd have no patience for him or his voters, so I don’t treat his supporters as I would have the opposing side in previous years. Anyone who supports him supports what he says and promotes Nazis. There is no explaining it away, and they support a brutal rapist. No, this site is not meant for those people, and Celebitchy doesn’t claim to be a site for Trump supporters or have an obligation to welcome them.

        I am one of those who know HRC has flaws but nowhere in the same universe as the lunatic we have now. Not even in the same species. I would give anything for her to be leading us through everything.

      • Veronica says:

        Heh. Somebody who actually took conservative principles seriously would never have voted for Donald Trump, anyway. Nothing about his platform or political agenda speaks to limited government or decreased spending. (As it was, Hillary Clinton was considered fairly conservative by most Democrats of her generation.) If you voted for him, you voted because he spoke to your fears about evolving changes in the racial and gendered power structures of America, not because he had a cogent, well articulated plan for the economy and government. There’s really not an argument otherwise, especially given the incompetence he’s displayed over the past ten months.

    • cr says:

      She didn’t respond, she’s attacked. She responds, she’s attacked. If you did not want to read what she had to say you didn’t have to read the post.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      why should she? don’t like her? skip her stories.

      but taking the time to click, read and then comment makes no sense if you’re truly “sick of her”.

      • Bells says:

        Other commentators were complaining on other threads that Hillary hadn’t spoke out sooner. Nobody forced you to click this thread and respond, as others have mentioned. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.

    • Madie says:

      Really, just fade into oblivion! She was appalled? For the love of God, it’s been a known disgusting fact for years. But yet, she always had her hand out when Harvey was around and accepted it with a smile.

    • Veronica says:

      I mean…you can’t expect her to go away when the GOP still using her as the whipping boy to distract from the incompetence of their party leader. She had nothing to do with this story until OTHER people and media dragged her into it. Disliking her is fine, but it’s kind of ridiculous to blame her for being held responsible other people’s behavior.

  2. Kimble says:

    I’m a 55 year old woman in Colorado and I knew he was a predatory pig. This faux outrage is disrespectful to his survivors as well as we little people

    • CynicalAnn says:

      I was out to dinner last night with 4 other women in middle class suburbia-we all said we’d heard the rumors about him. Spare me the faux outrage.

    • BrandyAlexander says:

      Did you really though? I had never heard anything until I started coming to this website, and even then it was more along the lines of quid pro quo – parts for sex. Which is gross, but no where near as bad as we’re finding out now, I kind of believe that people didn’t know just how depraved he was.

      Also – I would really appreciate if someone would answer this questions or me. A lot of people have said the ladies were able to come forward because he wasn’t as powerful as he used to be. Can anyone tell me how he lost that power? Going into this, I thought he was just as powerful as ever (but glad that he is apparently not)

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        His movies haven’t made the same kind of money that they used to. Money = power.

      • BrandyAlexander says:

        @Who, OK thanks. I can see that. I didn’t realize they weren’t making the big bucks anymore.

      • Kitten says:

        I’m going to sound like a broken record but LISTEN to The Daily podcast from yesterday and the interview with Katherine Kendall in which she describes her disgusting encounter with Weinstein.

        She specifically talks about how he went out of his way to make it seem like he’s a benign and unassuming guy with genuinely good intentions….

        Until he didn’t anymore.

        As women, we REALLY need to familiarize ourselves with the manipulative tactics of predatory men. It’s so f*cking easy to say “everyone knew!” with a dismissive wave of the hand and FAR more difficult to tackle the deep work of understanding how extremely manipulative men are able to con smart women AND smart men.

        I don’t know if Clinton knew or not. I don’t know if maybe she heard rumors but she ignored or dismissed them as “just” rumors. I could also easily believe that she heard them and just thought he was a cad or a flirt and not actually a serial sexual assaulter. It’s also possible that she knew but liked the donation cash. But we know that she didn’t witness his disgusting behavior, she didn’t sign off on it or condone it and most of all, she is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS.

        That being said, she better donate that dirty-ass money.

      • Veronica says:

        I’m not surprised given the Hollywood system, but honestly, I’ve been following for celeb gossip for years and wasn’t aware of it. *shrugs* He’s not somebody I cared to follow, so I never bothered to dig deeper beyond his superficial attachment to projects. The reality is that we can all be remarkably blind to abuse that goes on before us simply because we don’t ask the right questions or don’t want to believe it. Where Hillary falls in that spectrum, I don’t know, but I agree with Kitten at the end of the day that she’s not the one to answer for it.

    • Katherine says:


    • klc says:

      Everyone knew, everyone. It is so much more convenient to feign ignorance and disgust after the fact.

      2013 at the Oscars Seth Mcfarlane made the “joke” about the women no longer having to pretend they are attracted to HW.

      In 1998 Gwyneth Paltrow Interview w/David Letterman. This is from the People magazine website.

      In response, Letterman joked, “Are you here of your own free will? Has someone coerced you into being here?”

      “Do you count Harvey Weinstein as a coercer?” retorted Paltrow.

      The exchange continued, as Letterman shared of Weinstein, “I don’t know whether he’s in some kind of organized crime now, but he used to be like some kind of like junior mob kind of guy. He was like in the mob auxiliary.”

      “I do all my movies for Harvey Weinstein, that’s Miramax, and I’m lucky to do them there but he will coerce you to do a thing or two,” Paltrow elaborated. When Letterman asked what Paltrow got in return for doing things for Weinstein, she stated, “nothing.”

      • magnoliarose says:

        What is your point? I think HRC was busy and not focused on Hollywood or Harvey. Why in the world would she spend time thinking about him? She isn’t an actress.

  3. moon says:

    This is my guess: many people knew Harvey was sleeping around, but they assumed it was consensual and transactional – most probably Harvey encouraged that belief. And his inner circle was okay with that. But no one knew he was forcing himself on these girls. We all assumed that because he was powerful and had something to offer, therefore it had to be consensual. And that as we have seen is not true.

    • ANOTHER DAY says:

      It is never consensual and contractual when there is such a blatant imbalance of power and when it is steeped in business.

      NEVER. NEVER. Read the story right before this one. “There’s a power dynamic that’s impossible to overcome.”

      Everyone needs to know and understand this.

      And most relevant here, Hillary certainly knows this. She’s a lawyer, And she’s lived with it literally.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        That’s just not true. It is possible for sex to be consensual even where there’s an imbalance of power (not all prostitution is rape, is it?) Women who have sex in a quid pro quo manner are not all victims. I think many knew about Harvey but assumed it was consensual and didn’t feel like it was their place to out the women who were having sex for roles. And then there were the outlier rumors that were totally false, like Gretchen Mol. The idea of consent is always complicated but here it is a nightmare to understand without nuance. A casual observer probably wouldn’t have seen his coercion.

      • Shirley says:

        which is why all of George Clooneys crap about ooooh I ONLY thought he was a Dog – like being a Dog is A ok – being a Dog George, is just a lower level of coercive behaviour some of the time, just because you throw in some charm, doesn’t mean you arnt taking advantage.

        But George would know that seeing as he was in fact a Dog himself with a long list of much younger much lower social status and pay grade girlfriends -

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        @Annabelle as a former top HR exec in a very large company, this is an area I know very well.

        In business there is plenty of case law which is very very clear…….that’s why so many businesses indeed have strict policies forbidding romantic relationships between bosses and subordinates. The road is very rocky and slippery and litigious. And that’s why TWC paid these women off for a range of inappropriate activity from garden variety harrassment to quid pro quo to rape.

        Prostitution is illegal and a criminal activity practically everywhere in USA ……..so I’m not going to participate in an analogy that relates Prostitution to somehow legitimizing inappropriate relationships* and sexual harrassment in the workplace. It’s a straw man argument that’s off base and irrelevant in my opinion.

        *even if you accept some form of romantic relationship between boss and subordinate as one of equal consensual footing (which I don’t, But apparently you do) it’s still grossly unfair to other employees and opens up allegations of favoritism in the workplace. Legitimate businesses of any size just don’t support this happening either. Besides, when the so called consensual relationship ends (and don’t most?) the aggrieved party can very easily say they felt pressure to be in the relationship due to potential loss of job. And that’s hard to disprove or argue against, hence all the policies…….

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @Anotherday I believe you both missed my point and proved my point. You’re speaking on this as though it’s some black and white issue when in fact the whole thing is a hundred shades of gray.

        By your logic, a romantic relationship that develops between a manager and employee is ALWAYS nonconsensual and therefore is criminal statutory rape.. that is an extreme argument, and that is what I’m calling you out on.

        And you’re also making the false assumption that this was just within his company. With many of these women, Harvey did not have an employer-employee relationship. Yet he had the power to make or break careers, and he did. Some of these interactions with women were consensual, and it would be difficult for an outside observer to know the difference. That’s all I’m saying.

        (The pearl clutching about the mere use of prostitution as an analogy is a red herring, and is quite telling).

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        No I didn’t equate statutory rape and romantic relationships between boss / employee at all. One is criminal law and one is employment law and I know and am damn clear on the difference, DOnt put words in my mouth (post).

        I don’t clutch pearls over prostitution ..just analogies that don’t really make much sense in the context of the discussion.

        And yes ……disproportionate power and influence relationships over others exists outside traditional, boss-subordinate employment. They have in courts of law (legally and litigiously) extended to contract and temporary employees, Vendor relationships etc.

        We disagree … fine.

        I stand firmly by my position. Any romantic or sexual relationship between individuals in a work related setting with disproportionate power or influence over another is fraught with ramifications….business, personal, legal. Not all end in catastrophe but all are risky. And in any company that I worked in or respected were strictly forbidden. Peer Coworkers ? Sure. Be safe, have fun, keep it out Of the workplace though.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @another I see you’re backing off your original point that these relationships could never be consensual, which is good. We agree, these relationships are complicated to say the least, but they can be consensual, obviously.

        I’ll never defend anything HW did. But I don’t think we should be criticizing every bystander who maybe didn’t know the extent of the matter and/or was terrified to be financially ruined and blacklisted. Even if you read about many of the victims’ experiences, many of them maintained friendships with him and only years later fully realized the hold he had over them. HW was manipulative and very powerful… I can’t fault the bystanders as much as everyone else.

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        I’m not backing off really Annabelle. Not at all. Again you are putting words in my mouth/post.

        I’ll cite you a zillion court cases where the boss claims they were consensual and the subordinate says “I was afraid for my job, so…….”. Heck some of HWs victims had ongoing relationships with him and say this.

        It’s consensual when things are good in your experience, then fine ….. but when things go south, the characterization gets recast. That’s why smart companies and smart people stay away from this.

        If a legit romantic relationship does begins to develop, the only honorable thing to do for the company and the peer coworkers of the boss / subordinate ….is for one of the two romantic parties to get another job quickly, Most HR policies say something like “you have one month to resolve the conflict of interest” If a relationship develops and they are consensual and leaves it to the 2 parties. If within the allotted time they haven’t resolved it, then they are both let go.

        These issues are fraught with problems for the company and everyone involved. Courts have taken pretty firm lines consistent with what I have said…..that a disproportionate allocation of power substantially weakens a standard of mutual consensus .

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        You’re right, Annabelle.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Annabelle agreed. I just don’t think some people want to understand how everyone’s relationship with Harvey was different. If you ever saw him in person, he just looks like some schlubby dude but not particularly menacing. Some women who have remained silent maybe didn’t have a bad experience and had nothing to add. I am not kidding either. Men like Harvey can have many faces and can be charming as anything.
        Rumors are not first hand experiences and you don’t know what she knew.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      Everyone on the board of Miramax knew-they were okaying the payouts. Every person who was assaulted told people in their lives-including famous people (i.e. Brad Pitt.) Yes-there are plenty of people who thought maybe it was consensual. But there are loads of people who knew it was not.

  4. Shambles says:

    “I continue to find it mind-boggling to see how Hillary Clinton was repeatedly attacked for Harvey Weinstein’s actions.”

    That’s the theme of the week, it seems. How many women can we attack for the behavior of predatory men? So very eye-opening.

    • Mermaid says:

      Totally agree. People blame everyone except the man responsible for his actions. That theme is everywhere this year and I’m so sick of it.

      • Andrea says:

        Everyone is blaming the man responsible. But if everyone new what he did and still accepted his money aren’t they part of the problem as well? How do you think he was able to get away with this behavior when everyone new what he did. That’s how Harvey maintained his power. I don’t agree with Hilary being singled out. I’m sure the democratic party has been accepting his money for many years.

      • Kitten says:

        @ Andrea- You’re still working backwards in your thinking.
        Start with the source: toxic masculinity giving birth to a patriarchal society and you have your answer as to how Weinstein was able to get away with his behavior.

  5. robyn says:

    Not surprisingly, its Hillary’s fault she didn’t speak up right away when the Weinstein news appeared. And yup … Hillary is responsible for each and every sexual predator out there and for not digging beneath the surface of their masks and false smiles. There’s always a path to blaming a woman but a male predator gets voted into the highest office.

  6. bonobochick says:

    Jenny Trout has a great tweet thread about this cause I’m also tired of the media / GOP piling on to demand a response from Hillary Clinton when something happens.

    I feel like if people wanted Clinton to come out and address every major event in the country, they probably should have elected her?


    • Bells says:

      Jenny Trout is fantastic. I love her 50 Shades of Grey recap. It was the best way to get through those damnable books.

  7. Evie says:

    Sorry, I believe everyone in the entertainment industry as well as the politicos that got campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein knew about him being a sexual predator for a l-o-n-g time. Did everyone know every sordid detail of every person that Harvey preyed upon during his career? No, of course not. But there were certainly more than enough stories to show he was an unrepentant, recidivist sexual predator and bully used to getting his way.

    It’s easy to issue statements of condemnation and outrage now that he’s been stripped of his power. And let’s not pretend that HW is the only pig in the pen. As for Hillary her outrage rings false and hollow: she kept silent about Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes for DECADES. And when finally confronted about it she 1) Denied it and blamed the women and 2) Went on the Today Show and stated it was a right wing Republican plot to discredit her husband. Here’s a link to her January 27, 1998 Today Show Interview with Matt Lauer in which she denounces Special Prosecutor Ken Starr over the Monica Lewinsky allegations and denies them outright! There are many more examples.


    Credit to the courageous women like Ashley Judd, Rosanna Arquette and the lesser known actresses who had the courage of their convictions to risk scorn and ostracism and put their careers on the line by going on the record about HW.

    I hope that Hillary and all of the others who accepted his campaign contributions give the money back.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Hillary Clinton was correct in denouncing and discrediting the women other than Monica Lewinsky. Their cases were discredited and/or thrown out of court. They were paid by right-wing Republican groups to smear Clinton. This year Trump’s son flew them to one of the debates, to rub salt in the wound.

      Also there really was a right-wing Republican trap to smear both Clintons, and unfortunately he was such an ass he walked right into it. Monica Lewinsky was the unwitting tool. Her “friend” Linda Tripp worked for those Republican interests and betrayed the confidence.

      • Cat says:

        The allegations against Bill spanned decades before he became president. And Bill and Harvey hang together.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Hilary is not responsible for her husband. It makes the people attacking her seem either unhinged wingnuts or stuck in the 90s. The thread is about chunky nasty Harvey Weinstein. Two thousand and seventeen A.D. Join us.

  8. detritus says:

    We aren’t in the locker rooms, we aren’t part of the Wolf Pack.

    Stop asking women to confront their predators, when we aren’t given the power to do so.

    You think Harvey bragged to Hilary?

    No. These people are very aware of their words, and their audience. He knew he could be a dog around other men, and maybe around women who couldn’t soeak up, but I very much doubt he showed his true colours to Clinton.

    • Montréalaise says:

      But surely Clinton, as well-connected as she is, would have heard the rumours – and yet, she continued to accept his donations and schmooze with him. It`s her hypocrisy which is galling: she has always proclaimed herself to be a defender of women’s rights and has blamed her election defeat on misogyny, yet she turns a blind eye to someone who abuses and exploits other women. She has finally said she will return Weinstein`s donations, days after other politicians have said they will do so, which makes me think that her entourage had to twist her arm really hard. BTW, I’m Canadian so don’t ask how I voted in the election.

      • detritus says:

        Theres a difference between rumors and proof.

        Until I hear otherwise, there is no reason to assume she is complicit, and that she heard anything other than rumors. This Dog has spread his money around, he knows how to buy silence, and buy the benefit of the doubt.

    • Lilly says:

      Agreed. I’ve found in my profession, depending on the circles I’m in, I don’t hear about things often until later. Then people will profess surprise that I never knew. Predators are successful because they can fool people in many myriad of ways. It’s very sad when a victim starts to feel like they’re crazy, because the tactics promote that end. Believe, believe, believe the person is the lesson and I’ve seen how healing that can be. Stigma stops people from getting help. I appreciate her answer and frankly the current administration is one that would, and has, ignored this behavior. Somehow it sits much better with me than Damon or Affleck.

      • detritus says:

        preach. Don’t say your rosaries, repeat after me:

        Stigma stops people from getting help

        Stigma stops people from getting help

        Stigma stops people from getting help

    • Kitten says:

      Well said, my friend.

  9. Joannie says:

    This must be uncomfortable for her to speak about considering her husband while president was having intimate relations with a young woman who was interning. Poor Hillary! I feel sympathy for her.

    • Nick says:

      SHE feels uncomfortable?!? You feel sympathy for HER?!?! THERE ARE ACTUAL VICTIMS HERE!!!! Victims that could have avoided this trauma if people like Hillary spoke up sooner. Sit the hell down!

      • Joannie says:

        Yup I do feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for any woman who was married to a pig. She’s no different from anyone else who knew and didnt say a word. Stop acting like a deranged rabid dog attacking people on a gossip forum. FFS!

      • Kitten says:

        Hey Nick you know how else victims could have avoided this trauma?

        Cool how that works, huh?

      • detritus says:

        Did you just ‘oh sweetie’ a woman on a thread about sexual abuse?
        GTFO here.

  10. Iknowwhatboyslike says:

    Like most, I knew about Harvey’s piggish ways through gossip sites like this one. I had no idea it was this pervasive, this mechanical, this strategic, this pre-meditated. He has a system down. He was pathological and calculating, laying out traps for these young women. I thought at worst, he was a womanizer, a disgusting man, who used his power to get women to sleep with him. Like, “if you sleep with me, I’ll take care of your career” type thing. Which, alone, is gross as hell, but if the woman is down, it’s none of my business. I had no idea he was forcing his attentions on women. I had no idea he was accused of raping Rose McGowan. So I can see how some like Clooney, just thought it was mere “rumors” and I can see how Hillary could not have know the sexual assault ring Harvey had going on. Kate Beckinsale’s story really hit home how many people kept quiet. She said a male friend warned a young lady about Harvey and what happened, Harvey was told about the warning and the guy, who tried to do the right thing, was threatened.

  11. Nick says:

    From Obama to Clooney, Hillary to Meryl, I. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. YOU! You knew but you didn’t care because it didn’t affect you. I have so much more respect for those who are saying “I knew but I didn’t say anything” than I do for those who are lying through their teeth to save their own reputation.
    I’m stupified by people questioning why Hillary has to comment on this. Who cares if she’s a private citizen? So are the actors we are demanding answers from. Hillary needs to comment on this because, just like those actors, she has been friendly with the pig (I wrote “man” first but he doesn’t deserve to be called that) for FIFTEEN YEARS and he has helped her professionally (I.e. Donating a butt ton of money to her campaign). I’m more disappointed in her than I am about the majority of male actors who didn’t say anything. She wasn’t in a position where he could destroy her career and her reputation.
    But what people still don’t get is that even if she didn’t have the connections she does to the bloated carcass, it’s still her JOB to comment on it. It’s every Hollywood execs JOB. It’s every actors, actress, unpaid interns JOB. It’s every politicians JOB. Every Midwest farmers JOB. Every celebrity blogger and every commenters JOB, to SPEAK UP. Asking why “so and so” has to comment on this is ridiculous. Staying silent is what creates the environment where people like Weinstein can thrive.

    • bluhare says:

      Was Roger Ailes a big political donor? I know he wouldn’t have donated to Hillary Clinton, but I’m quite surprised to read everyone turn on people and demand they return Weinstein contributions. But I don’t recall reading anything about Roger Ailes and the swath he cut through the halls of Fox and repercussions of associating with him.

      Perhaps my memory is selective.

      • Nick says:

        Did I say anywhere that I wanted HRC to return his donations? I just want people to tell the freakin truth and stop trying to save their own as*ses.

      • bluhare says:

        Question was rhetorical and not necessarily directed at you. Sometimes people say things which make me muse on the topic. And I did here wondering about people making a big deal about Hillary returning contributions. Made me wonder if people returned any donations Roger Ailes made. There’s been a big enough storm about Weinstein’s contributions. That’s all. Feel free to go back to ranting now.

      • Nick says:

        Understandable. I apologize if it sounded like I was snapping at you. It didn’t come across that way in my head. As far as giving back the money, I don’t think that would help. Hell, if it hurts him more by not having that money to fall back on, Hillary can light it on fire for all I care. Hopefully in the future, people will research who they take money from.

    • mellie says:

      AMEN….it’s simple, these people didn’t want to bite the hand that fed them. Greed. They themselves love being powerful and famous and they sure as heck didn’t want to jeopardize their own power/fame, so at the expense of others they stayed silent. I have all the respect in the world for Barack Obama and some of the ‘silent others’ (who KNEW, the freaking KNEW!), but I sure am disappointed to say the least.

    • Kitten says:

      This argument reminds me of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people argument” and I just find it so damn counterproductive.

      People would not have been massacred in Las Vegas if guns didn’t exist, PERIOD. It’s not everything that came after that: the NRA transforming into a powerful lobbying entity, the loosening of gun control laws, Big Gun manufacturers flooding the markets with more and more guns etc that causes people to people die from guns

      It all starts with the invention of gunpowder in China.
      No guns, nobody dies from guns.

      So here’s the thing: you don’t solve systemic issues by lecturing and shaming people to speak out, you start to combat the issue at it’s inception, at it’s source. You have to ask yourself what is at the center of this systemic problem and start from there.

      We don’t change predatory male behavior by shifting blame to those who may have been too scared or intimidated to speak out, we start by asking ourselves how we are raising our young men. Are we giving the emotional support they need? Are we raising them to respect women as true equals? Are we validating their feelings, even if they aren’t traditional “masculine” reactions?

      It’s also similar to the BLM movement and how most support the dismantling of law enforcement altogether. Because you can’t fix the systemic issues that lead to police brutality through body cams or telling other police officers to report their own when they see something awful. We’ve been trying that for decades and it simply DOES NOT WORK.

      I really wish that out of all these threads, we could actually talk about toxic masculinity, how dangerous it is, and what we, as a society, can do to stop it instead of focusing on celebrities speaking out.

      • mellie says:

        I get your argument and I agree with it wholeheartedly…but it still doesn’t make it right when those in the know keep their lips zipped to further their own careers. It’s like standing by and watching a fellow co-worker cheat on their time or steal from the cash register, sure something is fundamentally/morally wrong with that person to begin with, but if I sit by and let it continue to happen then I am a problem too. As Hillary herself said, “It takes a village…”

      • Nick says:

        I’m not blaming Hillary for HW’s actions. I’m saying that I 100% don’t believe her (and others who are saying the same thing). I believe she knew at the very LEAST that this man was a serial sexual harasser, yet she did nothing. She put herself out there as someone who cared about women’s rights and empowerment but stood silently by as this behavior happened. If we can’t trust someone who had the power and position to stand up to an abuser if that abuser benefits them, then who the hell can we turn to?

    • lara says:

      Then please tell, what she should have said? I heard a rumor that HW is a a sexist pig groping and raping women? To the press without prof? It would either never be printed or she would have faced a lawsuit. Going to the Police with a rumor? The would laugh at her?
      Without proof it is almost impossible to do anything. Even for the victims, without some kind of proof ist is more than difficult to go public.
      Now, that everything is out, it is easy to say, everybody knew and should have sopken earlyer.

      And in Clintons case, I actually belive, since she has been the victim of false rumors and knows how demaging they can be, that she takes the General stance, not to listen to rumors as long as nobody is speaking out and naming names.

  12. Ninks says:

    The thing that annoys me is that HRC was very clear in her condemnation of HW. She didn’t excuse or play it down. She didnt reguse to talk about it because ‘now is not the time’ or she ‘didn’t want to politicise it’.

    Last week when 500 were injured and 58 murdered by a white man with a gun, the people now criticising HRC issued meaningless statements offering prayers for the victims and shot down any attempt to have a proper conversation about gun control because they’re taking huge money from the NRA.

  13. Kathryn says:

    Rumors about Harvey Weinstein were so widespread that so many people outside of LA in non-entertainment industry jobs were aware of them. I find it incredibly hard to believe that so many people who knew him and worked with him had absolutely no idea and can be so shocked. Rumors can spread that far outside the circle of Hollywood and be completely unknown to some of those closest to him? No way.

    • Betsy says:

      Hillary isn’t “closest” to him.

    • Patty says:

      I posted this in another thread yesterday and it bears repeating. For the everyone knew crowd and those blasting everyone from Hilary to Obama and everyone in between. If you knew what were you doing about it? Like for real, did any of you boycott Miramax films or HCW films? Did you call out bloggers who were posting blinds? For those in the industry did you do anything to change the system? Or did everyone just shrug their shoulders and continue with business as usual?

      I am holding HW responsible for his actions and acknowledging that the industry that he is in producing men (and probably women like him) all of the time. But I would say those who are purveyors of celebrity gossip and blinds are just as responsible. Posting stories about women trading in sexual favors for movie roles with a little wink wink nudge nudge….that doesn’t make any of them any better than any number of people in Hollywood who may have known or may have suspected.

      • Nick says:

        The difference is that we are saying “we knew”. We aren’t asking for forgiveness from the victims or to be absolved of any association with his companies films. (FWIW I personally have tried to stay away from his films for a few years now). We also were never directly benefited personally or professionally, by him. The ones we are now calling out were.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It isn’t that easy to absolve some people and not others based on made up rules. There aren’t any. The simple question is what did you do about it? Because the thing is unless you were on his board or a victim you had nothing to go on but a rumor, and you don’t have the right to speak for victims unless they asked you stand for them.
        Her life is not HW and not close enough to have enough knowledge to do anything, and I guarantee she did not know anything outside of rumors. Unless you were one of his victims that told Hilary, and she ignored you, then your continued anger is bizarre.

  14. Betsy says:


  15. Amelie says:

    People who don’t follow celebrity gossip as closely as we do on this site or who don’t work in the industry or who literally don’t care about Hollywood will definitely not have known. Just because you know doesn’t mean the whole world knows. Harvey Weinstein is known of course as is his studio but a lot of people don’t pay attention to studio execs. I am almost 100% certain my own parents have no idea who Harvey Weinstein is (they do know obviously). Most of my friends probably had no idea about Harvey Weinstein. I only found out once I started coming to this site (sometime in college?) because celebrity gossip is how I unwind. I believe Hillary when she says she had no idea. Sex scandals/sexual harassment are rampant enough in the political world, I doubt her main priority was keeping tabs on the rumors surrounding every single person who donated money to her campaign.

    • Nick says:

      Your parents haven’t been friends with the man for 15 years. Your parents didn’t receive millions of dollars for their campaign. People who are insisting Hillary didn’t know are insulting her intelligence.

      • detritus says:

        Nick, I know of more than one abuser.
        I know of none in jail.

        At a certain point, your hands are tied. You do not have the right to take over someones narrative when they are the victim. This means even though I’ve seen my friends black eye, and the bruises on her throat, I could not report.

        By reporting when the victim chooses not to, you are revictimizing them. Taking away the very little power they have over the situation.

      • Nick says:

        There have been women coming forward for years asking for help, only to be ignored. Rose McGowan came foreword the same time Hillary was taking money from this man.
        And seriously, you have friends that are being physically abused and you’re doing nothing? WTF kind of friend are you?

      • magnoliarose says:

        You are purposely not listening. Did Rose ask her for help? Are any of the victims blaming her? If not then you need to take a seat and stop trying to take over someone else’s narrative. You aren’t his victim.

      • Veronica says:

        Nick – Sounds like she’s the kind that recognizes that abuse isn’t a simple issues where a superfriend can fly in and magically fix everything for them without potentially causing more problems, but classy way to oversimplify a tragic and painful situation for everybody involved.

        Abuse victims are tragic because they can be both victims and accomplices (some of them are, in fact, mutually abusive). Most of them have been beaten down and berated so long that they don’t know how to escape the abuse in the first place. They’ve been degraded so long they keep abusing themselves in their head even when their abuser isn’t there. If they aren’t locked into a situation financially or by children, they can still be so attached to their abuser that it’s impossible to get them to walk away. Some of them have difficulty finding people who will even believe them because abusers are, at the core, the worst kind of snake charmer.

        And even if you get them away? You have to be able to protect and support them. Most DM victims are killed AFTER they leave their abuser because it represents a break in the abuser’s control. In many cases, they’re financially bereft and need financial support. Others require intensive, long-term counseling. A lot of them lack familial or platonic support because their abuser has isolated them by destroying their emotional system. And even after all that, you have to be prepared for them trying or outright running back to their abuser no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise. Long term abuse creates long term trauma. Not everybody can break that destructive psychological cycle.

        It’s not about being a “shitty” friend. It’s about the reality of abuse and the difficulty of helping people escape those ugly mechanisms in real life. Sometimes you literally cannot help people who won’t help themselves, as heartbreaking as that sounds.

      • detritus says:

        How many people have you helped leave abusive relationships?
        How many have felt safe telling you about their abuse?

        My hunch is that with that attitude, zero.

        You continue to show your complete lack of understanding as to the dynamics of abuse, as well as an aggressive assumption you somehow know more or better. Instead of mansplaining to me, about how I failed, maybe you should examine why you came to a feminist site to yell at women, on a thread about abuse.

        From what I’ve seen – you are all talk.
        Walk the walk, sweetie, then we can chat. Maybe before then, look up Kruger-Dunning. You’re displaying a prime example of it.

  16. Old Wine Box says:


  17. Frosty says:

    Real question: If she can give the money to charity, why can’t she return it to that p.o.s. Weinstein?

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Why should she give that POS any money? This way at least it goes to charity! Do you really want her adding to his legal fund? Gmafb

  18. Erin says:

    I’d like to point all those who would like to castigate Hillary Clinton for a man’s, any man’s, bad behavior to Rebecca Solnit’s essay at LitHub today: http://lithub.com/things-that-are-hillary-clintons-fault-starting-with-harvey-weinstein/.

  19. Shannon says:

    Why would she know anything about it? He obviously didn’t do it to her, and she’s not a young starlet and I don’t think she typically runs in those circles. It’s not like her and Weinstein were besties.

  20. Sandra says:

    I don’t understand why they have to return the donations he made. Seriously, why? Because he’s not a good guy? Are they required to vet every campaign donor? Doesn’t make sense to me. If he donated to the SPCA, are they expected to get rid of the money?

  21. JosieH says:

    Her response is just so clinical. No feeling behind it, and she SHOULD feel something about it. She and Michelle Obama very likely hurt every one of Weinstein’s victims by buddying up to him and singing his praises. They didn’t mean to do it, obviously, but when you hear the First Lady of the United States calling your rapist “a wonderful human being”, that’s going to cut deep. They (Clinton and Obama) should feel awful about it, yet I don’t get any sense that they do. It’s unfortunate.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      How hurt they must have been to see so many people come out and vote for a rapist to be president.

      • paila says:

        Because they most likely did hear stories or rumors at the very least, yet kept hob-nobbing with him. I still have yet to hear about the Obamas even returning his money.

    • paila says:

      And I don’t get why the Obamas aren’t getting slammed the same way that Hilary is.
      They allowed HW to the WH a total of 13 times, Michelle praised him and called him a ‘wonderful human being” and even got Malia an internship at his company.
      And they still have not said if they will return his dirty money or not. That just makes me angry.

  22. Electric Tuba says:

    Wake me up when everyone starts looking into the donations from the NRA pharmaceutical companies insurance agencies and the god damn mob. Come the hell on man

  23. Veronica says:

    She was screwed no matter if she spoke or remained silent, so what does it matter what she said? The people who want to hate her will do so regardless of what she does. I could care less at the end of the day. It’s Weinstein who needs to answer for his behavior more than anyone else.

  24. Carey says:

    She ran on woman’s rights, championing women and accepted millions from a womanizer rapist. Of course she should return the money or everything she stood for seems compromised.