Posted on 01/29/2018 7:03:05 PM PST by markomalley
During Mondays episode of The View, co-host Meghan McCain asked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand if Hillary Clinton should be held to the standards Gillibrand has been advocating concerning sexual harassment.
After lambasting President Trump and former Republican National Committee finance chairman Steve Wynn over multiple allegations of sexual harrassement and assault, Gillibrand was stumped when McCain asked her if Hillary Clinton should be chastised for keeping an aide on her campaign after a woman accused him of sexual harrassement in 2007.
You are a longtime supporter of the Clintons and consider her a mentor. Do you think her response this weekend was appropriate? McCain asked.
Gillibrand stammered for a few seconds before saying she didnt know all the details, and that the attention should be focused on the sexual harassment women face in the workplace, which is precisely whats at issue with Clintons aide.
As you know I think these things have to be dealt with whether a Democrat or a Republican, Gillibrand said. You need transparency, you need accountability, and no one is above criticism. But in that case I dont know all the details. I dont know if the punishment she chose was the right punishment. But what it does bring us to talk about is this issue of workplace harassment.
A lot of people were really surprised it took you 20 years to say Bill Clinton shouldve resigned over the Lewinksy scandal, so what do you say to that? McCain asked the Democratic senator.
I think this moment of time that were in is very different, Gillibrand said. I think many of us did not have that same lens, myself included, but today we are having a very different conversation. And there is a moment in time where we can actually do the right thing, or fixate on one president.
Do you regret campaigning with him though? McCain asked.
Gillibrand did not acknowledge the question or answer it, and continued to opine about the #MeToo movement.
Its not about any one president and its not about any one industry, she said. And if we reduce it to that we are missing the opportunity to allow women to be heard, to allow women to have transparency, to allow women to have justice.
You can watch the entire segment below. The exchange between McCain and Gillibrand starts at about the five minute mark.
I’m not sure I see the downside of thinning the herd of Canada Geese.
Not only is it really really cruel (the goslings peeping endlessly in confusion for their mothers, mated pairs separated, etc.), but it is scientifically a stupid way to attempt control. If you remove the resident population of geese, considering the prime habitat they occupied, more geese will promptly colonize it. I used to take my biology classes out to Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge for nature walks and the favorite bird that they saw on the trip was ALWAYS the Canada geese and their goslings. How could I explain to them, since the anal orifice Gillibrand sneaked that stupid legislation into a food stamps bill, that the cute baby goslings they admired would, in a couple of months, be rounded up and gassed?
What stupid replies by Senator Gillibrand.
Herewith, for your edification, are the Certified Democrat Degenerates......the scum that vilify and destroy America's Judeo-Christian ethics and values in movies promoted as being "diverse, politically correct, and socially relevant."
HOLLYWOOD'S CERTIFIED DEMOCRAT DEGENERATES
FINANCED BILL CLINTON'S LEWINSKY SEX MESS
According to FEC Info, an Internet Web site (www.tray.com) that tracks federal political contributions, 176 individual donors actually contributed $10,000 or more to the lewinsky-era Clinton Legal Expense Trust fund through Dec 1999. Another 21 donors gave $10,000 in the first six months of 2000.
Thanks to Hollywood's generosity, a total of more than $2.2 million was raised in six months, which was notably more than was collected in funding during the previous four years of his presidencycombined. Hollywood producers and stars made up the bulk of the most generous givers. They included:
<><> Universal Studios tycoon Lew Wasserman and his wife, Edith, gave $60,000;
<><>DreamWorks trio Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, $20,000 each;
<><> producer Ron Burkle and his wife, Janet, $40,000;
<><> producers Peg and Bud Yorkin, $30,000;
<><> TV producer Norman Lear, $20,000.
Entertainment celebrities and executives giving $10,000 included:
<><> singers Tony Bennett and feminist Barbra Streisand;
<><><> actors Michael Douglas and Tom Hanks;
<><> director Ron Howard; producer Gail Zappa;
<><>Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson.
=========================================
<><> How did the Hollyood elite list payments to Clinton's sex defense fund on their corporate statements AND on their tax returns?
<><>How did the "DreamWorks" trio, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, list their 60,000 dollars to Clinton's sex defense fund?
<><>How did BET list its contribution to Clinton on its corporate statements?
<><> Did Harvey's company list these payments as "business expenses?"
The biggie is the tax element.
<><> Did donors deduct it as a business expense,
<><> was it included in assets, payments listed on organization balance sheets as a "liability?"
<><> Did Clinton document it as "income"?
<><> Were the donors given a tax-free certificate from the Clinton Foundation?
cont
When Bill Clinton was at the height of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, Hollywood was by his side, offering donations for his legal fees, and one significant donor was a man who is now going through his own sex scandalHarvey Weinstein.
Billionaire Harvey Weinstein raised $1,422,683 for federal candidates and political entities between 1990-2016. Thats small potatoes for his 27 years of rank Democratism, sucking up to feminism and upholding so-called abortion rights as he rampaged and assaulted young women. Adds up to about $5300 a year.
Something tells me there are a lot of cash payments off-the-record being paid. (hat tip outpostinmass2) Crunching the numbers as outpost did does give us a sharper look at the political money game as played by the conniving Clintons.
Harvey also gave a bundle to the nefarious tax-exempt Clinton Foundation and perhaps to offshoots of the Clintons tax-free entities.
Did Harvey's donations to the C/F go to "do-good projects"? Or did they make a circuitous route? Maybe landing back into the Clintons eternal political scams?
Final solution---"nobody's business but ours" even as he got BJ'ed on our dime.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who had more than just allegations, is continued to be given a pass because 'that was then?'
Well, she's got the typical liberal hypocrisy/double standard down.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks markomalley.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.