Clinton Foundation Won’t Give Back Weinstein’s $250,000 Donation
After days of avoiding the topic, the Clinton Foundation told the Daily Mail Sunday that it would not return the up to $250,000 in donations that disgraced former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein contributed over the years, because the foundation had already spent the money.
Many other Democrats and liberal organizations turned away from Weinstein after more than a dozen women accused the co-founder of The Weinstein Company and Miramax Films of sexually harassing, assaulting, or raping them in a series of bombshell reports this month. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it would be donating all of Weinstein’s contributions to charities, but the Clinton Foundation chose not to follow suit.
The foundation's spokesman, Craig Minassian, offered a precursor of the foundation's decision when he tweeted Saturday, "Suggesting @ClintonFdn return funds from our 330,000+ donors ignores the fact that donations have been used to help people across the world."
Weinstein's contributions to the Clinton Foundation totaled between $100,000 and $250,000, and the last contribution came in 2014, the spokesperson told the Daily Mail.
The foundation said that the Weinstein cash had gone toward charities supporting women's rights and HIV medication.
The foundation chose not to follow 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's footsteps when she told CNN's Fareed Zakaria Wednesday that she "of course" would donate the more than $17,000 he contributed toward her 2016 and 2008 presidential campaigns to charities.
"I give 10 percent of my income to charity every year," Clinton told Zakaria. "This will be part of that. There's no doubt about it."
The Clinton Foundation is run by Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea. It is following in the footsteps of the Democratic National Committee, which is holding onto $270,000 of Weinstein's contributions.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-foundation-wont-part-with-weinstein-money/
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
That's a lot of money to turn away. Hillary is used to taking a little heat
So you believe they should give it back to Harvey? Okay... that's a weird way to punish him... I don't think you conservatives thought this all the way through did you, but that's just par for the course for conservative Republicans.
What "Clinton Cronies"? The Clinton foundation does good work all over the world and the Clinton's don't get a penny of those donations. The foundation has been vetted and proven to be effective in helping tens of thousand of women in need. You can rail and whine all you want but no one has proven otherwise.
www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478
www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-scores-higher-as-a-charity-than-the-red-cross/
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-clinton-foundation-controversy/
That generalization covers everyone that 'doesn't think like us on the left' and we're pretty used to it here.
What about all these actors, directors, PR people, agents. writers who took his money? Just like Hillary....they are hypocrites!
Yes, absolutely and the biggest one is the so-called "feminist" attorney, Lisa Bloom, who was actively helping Weistein
Of course not. It was already spent for bribes...
"I give 10 percent of my income to charity every year," Clinton told Zakaria. "This will be part of that."
So she isn't giving any more money to charity, she's just going to claim that it's his money she's giving away even though it all comes from the same pot...
good point
Does she know that her pocket isn't a charity?
Good question
What? You expect the Clinton foundation to give back money they obtained from questionable sources? Come on man they would have to give it all back!
So should Puerto Rico give back any money Harvey donated? If it's going to help those people survive and rebuild I don't really care where it came from. Same with the Clinton foundation which helps millions of people around the world get malaria treatments, aids treatments and education, helps women in underserved countries get access to educations to better their lives. If Harvey donated at least some of his ill-gotten gains when to a good cause. To deprive those women of those funds when it could save their lives would just be another way to screw over women. Now if you're a political campaign, then you should send any money Harvey gave you to charity where it can do some good instead of continuing to be in his dirty bathrobe pocket.
And your vouching for the Clinton foundation (which is seeing far less donations now) actually getting that Harvey money to people in need?
Not me. It appears you're in denial or apparently believed all the Russia misinformation bots on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube who have been lying to you and conservatives for some time now.
www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478
www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-scores-higher-as-a-charity-than-the-red-cross/
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-clinton-foundation-controversy/
You may be interested in this:
I wouldn't give it back either. No matter the source some good would come of it.
It's tainted by the donor. By accepting the money, you are at the very least accepting of what the man did.
So you'd give the money back to Harvey? That's a weird way to punish him for his crimes. Kind of like voting for a self admitted sexual predator like Donald Trump eh? Can't give that vote to Hillary so you'll give it to the guy who admits he just grabs women by the genitals and starts kissing them because, in his words, "When you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything." I'm sure Harvey thought of himself as a star so I guess you and the President gave him a pass to "do anything".
Personally, I would think the only sensible thing is to give the money to charity so that some good might come of his ill-gotten gains.
No I'm not, that might be true for others (I can't guess what people other than myself support or don't) but it's not true for me.
Any money coming from that "foundation" is tainted.
Best thing to do? Give it to a charity that helps women get justice from sexual predators.
Whether it's tainted or not is irrelevant as it has no impact on me or what I choose to do with it.
12 hours and running, and no sign of the libs making the excuse that "Trump sucks too".
Yet, they showed up on the harassment seed to excuse liberal hubris and hypocrisy.
I guess this one's too much for even them.
Ahhh yes, a Trump supporter, which means you are a hypocrite if you are posting on this seed to pretend to be outraged at the Clinton Foundation keeping the money Weinstein gave them. After all you are supporting someone who grabs women because he thinks he is privileged and, can do whatever he wants.
Well, THERE you are, overthinking and changing the subject.
This is so simple, I'm surprised that someone decided to seed the article.
1)The Clinton Foundation received money from Harvey Weinstein.
2)The Clinton Foundation should return the money to Harvey Weinstein.
3)The Clinton Foundation has NOT returned the money to the Harvey Weinstein.
4)The Clintons are hypocritical money grubbers.
And you found a way to fit Trump into this.
Your post shows the hubris that the Clintons exhibit.
Let's see, you said this,
It's tainted by the donor. By accepting the money, you are at the very least accepting of what the man did.
Then you said this,
12 hours and running, and no sign of the libs making the excuse that "Trump sucks too".
Yet, they showed up on the harassment seed to excuse liberal hubris and hypocrisy.
I guess this one's too much for even them.
Then I posted my comment so, who brought Trump into this? You did. Since you support the bastard, Trump, you support the kind of behavior Weinstein is accused of, after all Trump said he could "grab any womans pussy I want simply because of who I am."
Could and did are two entirely different things, Galen.
I didn't notice you in the voting booth with me at the time, but if you must know, I did not vote for Trump for President.
The basis of my posting is the pass that the liberal media and liberals such as yourself give to Democrats and Democratic supporters, simply because they're Democrats. If you want to make a distinction between Trump and Weinstein, it's NOT by what you don't say, but what you DO say. And you have nothing to say about Weinstein. Nothing.
If they're equally creepy, say the fuck so, and get your head out of whatever Democratic leader's ass you currently have it in.
Learn balance.
When a liberal or progressive finds out one of their own has done deplorable things they immediately denounce them and talk about how disgusting that individuals actions are. When a conservative finds out one of their own has done things or made horribly sexist or predatory comments or actions they immediately try to deflect by bringing up some liberal or democrat from the past who was caught doing something similar even if it was from over 30 years ago. Bill Clinton is their favorite dead horse that's been beaten so much it looks like horse stew. And then, after deflecting, they wonder aloud about their guy begging their God for forgiveness for their moment of weakness. See Ted Haggard, Dennis Hastert, Ed Shrock, Steven LaTourette, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Randall Tobias, Vito Fossella, John Ensign, Chip Pickering, Chris Lee, Scott DesJarlais, Vance McAllister, and of course Donald Trump whom 13 women accused of sexual assault and admitted on tape that he grabs women by their genitals and just starts kissing them because "When you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.". Conservative Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not only this but, they elect him president.
And they almost elected his wife too, who made a career out of slut shaming and attacking the woman her husband attacked.
When? We kicked that slime to the curb as soon as he was found out.
Except that everyone has denounced him in every way possible, so not sure where you've been to have missed it.
Larry Craig?
Sorry dears, but the last thing the Clinton Foundation should do is return this guy's money.
Why?
His current and future prospects are looking rather grim at the moment. Receiving a $250,000 check in the mail would probably twirl his skirt up right over his head. Think about it: His wife has left him, he's been blackballed, fired, and/or asked to step down from the most profitable areas of his life, and I bet he's been frantically counting his remaining Viagra refills.
So...give it back? Hell to the no. But...if the Clinton Foundation wanted to donate an equal sum to a worthwhile organization, that would be an excellent example of taking the higher road.
Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women....How many of the people HE donated to are giving back their donations? None. Weird! LOL