Hillary Clinton has been on a non-stop Denounce Misogyny Tour  since the Harvey Weinstein story broke. We're disgusted and sickened by the Weinstein scandal, too, and we ardently hope that the publicity will make it harder for the next serial abuser who is left alone because of his money and power.

Meanwhile, we can't help but be amazed at what can only be described at Mrs. Clinton's combination of insincerity and opportunism in addressing this scandal that involves an old friend who has raised millions to support her political career and given generously to the Clinton Foundation.  There is also an element of detachment from reality in Mrs. Clinton's response–she seems utterly unaware of the irony in much of what she says.    

Mrs. Clinton has tried to deflect scrutiny of her old pal Harvey's sexual abuse of women, which was well known in Hollywood and New York for decades, by bringing up President Trump. The president's Access Hollywood tape still disturbs me, even though I believe that the president is doing some great things for the country. But Hillary's amnesia about another occupant of the Oval Office's sexual history makes her interviews like an accident on the highway: you can't stop looking, even though it is an awful sight.

Hillary's attempt to make the Weinstein scandal about President Trump, with whom she is unwholesomely obsessed,  is irritating but also hilarious,in a dark humor sort of way. This is particularly the case in light of Mrs. Clinton's reported endeavors to diminish the women who came forward and said they had suffered sexual abuse by former president Bill Clinton.

When intrepid Brit interviewer Andrew Marr, noting that Mrs. Clinton had talked about the courage of women who come forward to expose sexual abuse, asked her if she was right to dismiss the women who claimed during the 2016 campaign to have been sexually abused by her husand, here is what she said:

“Well, yes, because that had all been litigated,” Hillary replied without missing a beat. She continued, “I mean that was the subject of a huge investigation as you might recall in the late 90s and there were conclusions drawn and that was clearly in the past.”

You've got to hand it to the Clintons–it takes nerve (or complete disengagement from reality) to say things like this. Hot Air responds:

Hold on a moment, did she just say that had been litigated as if a) all of this was settled in a court and b) Bill was exonerated? In fact, Paula Jones’ claim did go to court and Bill Clinton eventually settled out of court for $850,000. Hmmm, a settlement paid to an accuser in which the accused admits to no wrongdoing. Why does this sound so familiar? The judge in that case also held Bill in contempt saying his deposition in the case was “intentionally false.” She referred him to the Arkansas bar which later pulled his license. So yes, that accusation was litigated but not in a way that looks good for Bill Clinton.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation is not jumping on the bandwagon to announce that it is giving back money given to it by Weinstein. The U.K. Daily Mail reports:

The spokesman said the foundation already spent the money on its programs, such as lowering the cost of HIV medication and supporting women and girls in developing countries.

The foundation said it supports commitments to combat human trafficking, and runs the No Ceilings Project ‘which aims to advance the full participation of girls and women around the world’ through ‘data-driven analysis on gender inequality, an in-depth conversation series, innovative partnerships, and CGI commitments.’

Got that? We've done so many good works with the Weinstein money that we deserve canonization rather than these cheap questions from hoi polloi. Peasant, you shouldn't even be asking these questions!

The Clinton Foundation reaction is quite revealing. It reflects the moral superiority the Hollywood-political upper echelons accord themselves for giving lip service to certain liberal ideals. When the scandal broke, and Weinstein still believed he could save himself, you'll recall he resorted to this very tactic: he said he would get help and double down on his efforts against the National Rifle Association.

The Weinstein scandal reveals how much Hollywood and the liberal political elites REALLY care about women. They want women's votes and they want women to buy tickets to increasingly souless movies, but as for defending actual women? Not so much.It's all about lipservice to liberal ideas.

Next year, when those of us who still watch the Oscars (a shrinking number , by the way), are lectured by the stars on global warming and misogyny, think one word: Harvey. They won't stop lecturing us because liberal platitudes are all they have left.  

Mrs. Clinton has said she would give back the money Weinstein raised for her–somebody should keep an eye on this.