To say that Fox News is loving the Harvey Weinstein scandal would be an understatement. I don’t think I need to go into much detail concerning how absurd all of this has been from a network that spends most of its time propping up and defending a “president” who’s been accused by at least 15 women of sexual assault and/or harassment, as well as being caught on tape bragging about being a sexual predator.
As CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out recently, for some, whether or not they’re “outraged” over sexual assault allegations seems to be based on partisan affiliation.
FOX NEWS FIRST: Clinton Foundation will reportedly keep Weinstein’s donations
For starters, this wasn’t a “FOX NEWS FIRST.” The article admits right at the very beginning that this news was first reported by the Daily Mail:
The Clinton Foundation told DailyMail.com it will not return as much as $250,000 in donations from Harvey Weinstein, saying on Sunday the money had already been spent on the organization’s programs and used for charitable purposes.
I’d like to elaborate on this “story” — but that’s literally it.
An A-rated charity that spends 88 percent of the funds it receives on charitable causes is declining to give back donations it’s already spent. So the foundation isn’t keeping anything because they no longer have the money.
So let me correct Fox News’ headline. It should read:
Clinton Foundation won’t return Weinstein donations which were already spent on charitable causes.
But that doesn’t support the narrative of this pathetic anti-Clinton “story” Fox News was clearly trying to push. That the Clinton’s are so “unethical and corrupt they’ll gladly keep the money from a disgusting sexual predator.”
Every single aspect of that narrative is total b.s. seeing as the Clintons don’t make money from their foundation.
So is Fox News suggesting that the foundation give money to Weinstein which was donated by other people instead of using those funds to help fight against the spread of HIV in Africa, combat human trafficking, and promoting gender equality around the world? And how does returning money to a sexual predator make sense? I think what most Democrats have said they were going to do with the funds he’s donated to them, give it to various charities, especially those focused on women’s issues, makes much more sense than giving it back to a scumbag.
Furthermore, since Trump’s been accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and/or assault, should the veterans groups he donated a million dollars to (only after he had been caught lying for months by the media he calls “fake” about giving these groups the money) return it, considering he’s an alleged sexual predator, too?
Even for Fox News this is a new low.
Not only does the headline clearly perpetuate a story that’s not true considering the foundation isn’t keeping Weinstein’s money because it’s already been spent on charitable causes, but it’s being pushed by the network for no other reason than the fact that they know most of the people who follow them are too ignorant to know that the Clintons don’t make money from the foundation. Most people who follow Fox News think the Clintons use their foundation to make themselves rich, as evident by many of the comments left on the article:
That just proves one thing the Clintons only want money and power and to hell with the American People. That’s why she lost the election. The people finally wised up and realized the real witch came to light.
Who didn’t know that Hildabeast Thunder Thighs Clinton never gives anything back. How much did her foundation get from the sale of uranium to Russia?
This woman would never return money. She is ravenous about money. Had she won the election, she would have surely sold out our country to the highest bidder!
Well, of course they’re going to keep the money. THey can’t give it back, they wasted it on Hillary’s campaign.
Did anyone actually think Hillary had ANY intention of returning the money?
Of course they will keep the money , this is the basis of why they are so corrupt, in Washington , its all about the money, not only there but in NFL and Hollywood , just follow the money
I’d have only been surprised HAD the Clintons returned the money. They are two of the most greedy people I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing.
Chelsea already spent it on beauty treatments … only another $12M worth to go and she’ll look feminine, maybe. Take a knee in prayer for the poor mutt.
Why does this surprises anyone? they are greedy….this foundation does nothing but fill up their coffers.
What a great way to expose to the world what a greedy bunch of filth the Clinton’s are!
I heard one Clinton supporter say she deserves to keep it. Why because she supports sextual predators? All Clintons are corrupt! Burn the witch! Lock her UP!
Who ever thought she would give it back? I’m guessing everyone who voted for her. Now they will start making excuses why she is keeping it. LMAO
The Clintons are notoriously rapacious when it comes to money. With them, it’s get as much as you can. Did anyone ever really believe that they would return money? If you did, you’re a fool. For them, money flows just one way.
The vast majority of the comments on that article followed this pattern.
Nothing like a bunch of rubes who voted for a billionaire who bragged about not paying taxes for nearly 20 years, settled a fraud lawsuit for $25 million because he created a fake university that scammed people out of tens of thousands of dollars, and refuses to show his tax returns to prove if he’s donated any substantial money to charity — calling the Clintons “greedy,” while attacking an A-rated charity.
Fox News knows its audience. It’s millions of hateful, ignorant people who live in a world where the reality they think is real doesn’t actually exist.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Trumpsters Won’t Like What a CNN Analyst Said About Trump’s Treatment of Women (Video) - November 22, 2017
- Explaining What ‘Merry Christmas’ Really Means To Trump and His Supporters - November 22, 2017
- Pastor’s Defense of Roy Moore Preying on the ‘Purity’ of Young Girls is Unbelievable (Audio) - November 21, 2017