Dems laundering Weinstein's money

In 1950, Jimmy Stewart co-starred in the movie Harvey with an invisible character of that name, a 6'3.5" tall pooka, a harmless but mischievous Celtic mythic creature.

Half a century later, filmmakers from Steven Spielberg to Harvey Weinstein considered remaking the widely beloved film with stars such as Jim Carrey; Adam Sandler; John Travolta; Robert Downey, Jr.; and the modern actor who most resembles Jimmy Stewart, Tom Hanks.

Weinstein in recent days has metamorphosed from the unseen Harvey behind the scenes of Hollywood movie-making, thanks to a New York Times investigation into his decades-long casting couch exploitation of young women.  Many of those women reportedly have been forced to see Weinstein's shortcomings.

Harvey Weinstein is a movie producer, but in Hollywood-on-the-Potomac, he has long been a major star funder of the Democratic Party.  Since 2000, he has donated almost $900,000 in cash to its left-liberal candidates, and he has bundled more than another $1.4 million from others for what liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank calls this "socialist" party.

The Democratic National Committee and many of its comrades are profoundly embarrassed, vowing to give at least a portion of Weinstein's now tainted money to others.

Typical of these promised new recipients is EMILY's List.  Emily in this case is not a woman's name, but an acronym for "Early Money Is Like Yeast."  It boosts the campaigns of leftist feminists with injections of early money.

But is the Democratic Party truly expiating its sins?  It seems to be merely moving $30,000 in campaign cash from its left pocket to its farther left pocket, making a transfer of fungible funds to an ideological ally that will ultimately give it to the same Democratic candidates.

As of this writing, a host of opinionated left-liberals – from Republican-hating late-night TV "comedian" hosts to Saturday Night Live – have been remarkably silent about the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal.

Most silent of all has been Hillary Clinton, who took tens of thousands of dollars from her good friend Harvey.  She as of this writing has not offered to give any of this money away to cleanse her conscience.

In fairness, Ms. Clinton has been busy elsewhere.  In late September, for example, she was on MSNBC grousing that white women voted against her.  Those women who voted for Trump, said Clinton, were "publicly disrespecting themselves."

Days earlier, Ms. Clinton told National Public Radio that women voted against her for president because their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers told them to support either Mr. Trump or socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) instead.

These are strangely contemptuous views of women to be coming from a self-identified feminist like Ms. Clinton, who now seems silently to condone abuse of women by her sexist male friend Harvey Weinstein.  (He is a "god," declared actress Meryl Streep at the Golden Globe awards.)

Ms. Clinton is accustomed to being an enabler of such an abuser.  As head of the Bimbo Eruption Unit in President Bill Clinton's White House, she was relentlessly ready to attack and destroy the reputations of women who accused her husband of rape and other forms of sexual predation.  If scandal drove Bill from the presidency, then as "co-president" – "You get two for the price of one" – she would also lose her privileged place.  President Bill Clinton, too, resembled Harvey, the male rabbit counterpart to a Playboy bunny.

Is Ms. Clinton a sincere feminist?  As investigators Edward Timperlake and William Triplett II report in their book Year of the Rat, seeking re-election in 1996, the Clintons and Democratic Party accepted between $400,000 and $1.3 million in political cash from the head of the prostitution business in Macau.  If so, then Ms. Clinton knowingly accepted big money from the abduction and enslavement of thousands of women and girls, who were chained to beds and daily raped by dozens of men.

Perhaps women voted against Ms. Clinton because they do respect themselves, are able to think for themselves, and vote by secret ballot.  Perhaps they see Harvey and Hillary and the Democratic Party all too clearly.

Lowell Ponte is author or co-author of eight books, the latest being Money, Morality & the Machine.  He can be reached via radioright@aol.com.

In 1950, Jimmy Stewart co-starred in the movie Harvey with an invisible character of that name, a 6'3.5" tall pooka, a harmless but mischievous Celtic mythic creature.

Half a century later, filmmakers from Steven Spielberg to Harvey Weinstein considered remaking the widely beloved film with stars such as Jim Carrey; Adam Sandler; John Travolta; Robert Downey, Jr.; and the modern actor who most resembles Jimmy Stewart, Tom Hanks.

Weinstein in recent days has metamorphosed from the unseen Harvey behind the scenes of Hollywood movie-making, thanks to a New York Times investigation into his decades-long casting couch exploitation of young women.  Many of those women reportedly have been forced to see Weinstein's shortcomings.

Harvey Weinstein is a movie producer, but in Hollywood-on-the-Potomac, he has long been a major star funder of the Democratic Party.  Since 2000, he has donated almost $900,000 in cash to its left-liberal candidates, and he has bundled more than another $1.4 million from others for what liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank calls this "socialist" party.

The Democratic National Committee and many of its comrades are profoundly embarrassed, vowing to give at least a portion of Weinstein's now tainted money to others.

Typical of these promised new recipients is EMILY's List.  Emily in this case is not a woman's name, but an acronym for "Early Money Is Like Yeast."  It boosts the campaigns of leftist feminists with injections of early money.

But is the Democratic Party truly expiating its sins?  It seems to be merely moving $30,000 in campaign cash from its left pocket to its farther left pocket, making a transfer of fungible funds to an ideological ally that will ultimately give it to the same Democratic candidates.

As of this writing, a host of opinionated left-liberals – from Republican-hating late-night TV "comedian" hosts to Saturday Night Live – have been remarkably silent about the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal.

Most silent of all has been Hillary Clinton, who took tens of thousands of dollars from her good friend Harvey.  She as of this writing has not offered to give any of this money away to cleanse her conscience.

In fairness, Ms. Clinton has been busy elsewhere.  In late September, for example, she was on MSNBC grousing that white women voted against her.  Those women who voted for Trump, said Clinton, were "publicly disrespecting themselves."

Days earlier, Ms. Clinton told National Public Radio that women voted against her for president because their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers told them to support either Mr. Trump or socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) instead.

These are strangely contemptuous views of women to be coming from a self-identified feminist like Ms. Clinton, who now seems silently to condone abuse of women by her sexist male friend Harvey Weinstein.  (He is a "god," declared actress Meryl Streep at the Golden Globe awards.)

Ms. Clinton is accustomed to being an enabler of such an abuser.  As head of the Bimbo Eruption Unit in President Bill Clinton's White House, she was relentlessly ready to attack and destroy the reputations of women who accused her husband of rape and other forms of sexual predation.  If scandal drove Bill from the presidency, then as "co-president" – "You get two for the price of one" – she would also lose her privileged place.  President Bill Clinton, too, resembled Harvey, the male rabbit counterpart to a Playboy bunny.

Is Ms. Clinton a sincere feminist?  As investigators Edward Timperlake and William Triplett II report in their book Year of the Rat, seeking re-election in 1996, the Clintons and Democratic Party accepted between $400,000 and $1.3 million in political cash from the head of the prostitution business in Macau.  If so, then Ms. Clinton knowingly accepted big money from the abduction and enslavement of thousands of women and girls, who were chained to beds and daily raped by dozens of men.

Perhaps women voted against Ms. Clinton because they do respect themselves, are able to think for themselves, and vote by secret ballot.  Perhaps they see Harvey and Hillary and the Democratic Party all too clearly.

Lowell Ponte is author or co-author of eight books, the latest being Money, Morality & the Machine.  He can be reached via radioright@aol.com.