Weinstein’s Woes And Democrat Double Standards!


For a few days now I’ve been looking at the controversy over Weinstein’s generosity to various Democrat politicians…

Clinton Ridiculed for Calling Out Weinstein Five Days Late | Vanity Fair

…and wondering if their belated ( ?) awareness of his proclivities – an alleged enthusiasm for taking sexual advantage of ambitious young women – would result in their repudiation of his support and the repayment of his large cash contributions.

I use that question mark after ‘belated’ because a glance at a cross-section of the American media suggests his unwholesome activities were something akin to an open secret.

 George Clooney ‘heard rumors’ for years about Harvey Weinstein’s .

It’s hardly unique in the history of the Anglo-Saxon World that the political/media in-crowd have known about scandalous behaviour among powerful notables and yet continued to interact happily with those involved, whilst collaborating to keep the common people in the dark.

Weinstein is unluckier than others, in that his variety of ‘outreach’ has gone public during his lifetime.

In the UK, it’s only recently that Brits have been allowed by the media to learn of what many in politics and the press undoubtedly knew about Heath The Homo.

Ted Heath would be interviewed over sex abuse allegations – Daily Mail

Same cover-up applied years before in the case of Labour Party Chairman Tom Driberg, a vile queer predator.

‘Sleaziest, Most Disreputable’ Media in the World? Britain’s! 

But reverting to today’s scandal, let’s just ask the obvious question, or that which should be obvious.

If Ms. Clinton is, quite correctly, disavowing the support of Weinstein for his sexual exploits…

=

=.

…will she follow the logical – and honourable – path and disavow the support of even more prominent people with a proven, not alleged, record of similarly scandalous activity?

=====

.