Today is the day when accused serial rapist and pedophile Harvey Weinstein will feebly push his walker into a New York City courtroom to begin his trial on five felony charges of rape and sexual assault. Given the names of some of Weinstein’s longtime friends and associates, it’s not all that surprising that Hillary Clinton would be asked for her thoughts on the matter during her interview with the Hollywood Reporter. Asked if she had any regrets over the relationship she and Bill had with the accused, Clinton seemed rather unconcerned, saying that it “made sense” at the time. Also, how could they have known? (Mediaite)

In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, after being asked whether she has any “regrets” over her “lengthy association with Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton responded, “How could we have known?”

“He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general. And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense,” she declared. “And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior.” …

According to the Washington Post, “Weinstein and his family have given more than $1.4 million in political contributions to the Democratic Party since 1992, including $10,000 to Barack Obama, and $46,350 to Clinton and HILLPAC, a political action committee that she used to support other Democrats while she was a senator.”

Yes indeed. How could she or Bill possibly have known? I mean, it’s not like every attractive young actress in Hollywood has said that everyone knew (or should have known) to steer clear of this creep for decades, right? Beyond that, back in 2017, the New York Times reported that both Tina Brown and Lena Dunham (both big supporters of the Clintons and Democrats in general) had warned Hillary about Weinstein back in the day. Dunham claims that she contacted Hillary Clinton’s campaign directly and said, “I just want to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point.”

Assuming her claim is accurate, that’s not exactly a subtle rebuke.

On top of that, Ronan Farrow claims that Hillary Clinton’s people tried to cancel an interview with him a couple of years ago after expressing “concerns” that he was working on a big story about Weinstein.

But those items are from the relatively recent past. How about back in the 90s and early 2000s when Weinstein was infamously on the prowl? Well, if you go to the Clinton Presidential Library’s digital archives, you’ll find a veritable trove of search results for pictures of Weinstein with one or the other of the famous Clintons. So there was obviously a relationship there that could easily have stretched beyond their gratitude for Weinsteins many generous donations to Democratic candidates.

Does that prove that Hillary Clinton absolutely knew that Weinstein was preying on young, aspiring actresses in Hollywood and beyond? I suppose not. Saying that Bill had no idea seems considerably less plausible. But if Bill and Harvey were hanging out together, could Hillary realistically have had “no idea” what was going on? Keep in mind that she once admitted during an interview that Bill was a hard dog to keep on the porch.

Absent some hidden recording from long ago surfacing, I suppose there’s no way we’ll ever know for sure. But the idea that nobody knew what Weinstein was (allegedly) up to back then and the Clintons didn’t suspect anything strains credibility to say the least.