- The Washington Times - Thursday, October 12, 2017


Well, finally and at last, and about freaking time.

Hillary Clinton came out on CNN on Wednesday to say she was “sick” and “shocked” and “appalled” over the whole Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment-slash-rape allegations floating about the media. 

Floating about the media for days, one might add.

Guess Hillary had to think about it awhile. While others in the Democratic Party and in Hollywood were rushing to denounce Weinstein, distance themselves from Weinstein, express disgust with Weinstein and yes, even return political donations from Weinstein, Hillary was busy — thinking.

Thinking, thinking, thinking.

Now she’s done. And she’s made a Decision. And apparently, she’s decided Weinstein doesn’t deserve her silent defense any longer.

“I was appalled,” she said on CNN. “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.”

She also said she was going to give Weinstein’s political donations to charity.

“What other people are saying,” she said, “what my former colleagues are saying, is they’re going to donate [their Weinstein contributions] to charity, and of course, I will do that. 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.”

At first blush, one might think — is she running for office again?

Is she campaigning to make clear that she’s a good Christian tither?

But reread the statement and it’s this that’s of larger note: Instead of just taking the Weinstein donations and refusing them on principle — sending them to charity as an act of rejection for WeinsteinClinton, by her own words, appears to be actually rolling the Weinstein donations into her normal and usual tithe.

“This will be part of that,” she said.

So she’s taking Weinstein’s money and giving it to God — as part and parcel of what she claims is her normal 10 percent tithe. That’s not an outright return of funds. That’s a sliding of one fund into another.

Sigh. Even when Clinton’s making a stand on principle, she can’t stand on principle.

A principled stand against Weinstein would go like this: I’m getting rid of all the money he’s given me over the years.

An unprincipled stand — the one Clinton chose — goes like this: I’m returning the Weinstein donations and labeling that money as part of my usual 10 percent charitable giving.

Perhaps she misspoke. Perhaps Clinton just meant to say that she was returning Weinstein’s money, in whole, and oh yeah, by the way, I also give 10 percent of all my income to charity each year.

But perhaps not.

And the smart money’s on the perhaps not.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide