The New York Times is out with a new bombshell piece on Harvey Weinstein with this delicious revelation: Lena Dunham and Tina Brown reportedly warned Hillary Clinton and the campaign that Harvey Weinstein was a “rapist”, yet Hillary persisted in cashing his checks anyway:
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 6, 2017
Not only that, but the Clintons reportedly were in talks with Weinstein after the election to discuss a “possible campaign documentary”:
Among the revelations in the new @nytimes piece on Weinstein: @lenadunham says she tried to warn the Clinton campaign about Weinstein. Report also says the Clintons had dinner at Rao's with Weinstein/Boies days after election defeat to discuss possible campaign documentary.
— Gabrielle Birkner (@GabiBirkner) December 6, 2017
Keep in mind, this means that Dunham didn’t do anything either:
.@lenadunham warned @HillaryClinton in private because she was worried it would hurt her politically. Otherwise she kept quiet and allowed more women to be assaulted and maybe worse. https://t.co/sNH1HHjJRR
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) December 6, 2017
And neither Hillary Clinton nor Dunham, who hosted Malia Obama for an internship on the set of “Girls” in the summer of 2015, warned the Obamas about Weinstein ahead of Malia’s internship with him in 2017:
Or maybe Dunham is lying about warning Hillary:
Do we have any reason to believe Lena Dunham's claims in this story and not that she's making stuff up to clear her name after her bungled defense of the Girls writer? https://t.co/7O1kYTGt5w
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) December 6, 2017
Hillary communications director Nick Merrill denied Dunham’s claim, saying “Only she can answer why she would tell them instead of those who could stop him”:
So, one of them is lying.