It’s not an impeachable offense — because she will never, ever be the president — but in yet another reminder that any flaming pile of garbage could have beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, Ronan Farrow’s new book, Catch and Kill, reports that Hillary Clinton withheld an interview for his prior book on diplomacy in the hopes of coercing him to stop his investigation into Harvey Weinstein.
Farrow, a State Department alumnus who had worked for Clinton during the Obama administration, published his first book, War on Peace, with interviews from every living secretary of state. But in an about-face, Clinton, with whom he’d had a positive professional relationship, withdrew from a number of planned interview slots.
In July 2017, Clinton had written a letter commending Farrow’s book progress — “It was very lovely, and not the sort of thing that wins Wisconsin,” Farrow notes dryly — and promises an interview that month, prior to Clinton’s book tour. But in August, Clinton flack Nick Merrill called Farrow to say that the Weinstein story was a “concern” for her. He added that she’s “really busy with the book tour.”
“Over the ensuing weeks, every attempt to lock a date for the interview yielded another terse note that she’s become suddenly unavailable,” Farrow writes. “She’s injured her foot. She was too tired. Clinton, meanwhile, was becoming one of the most easily available interviews in all of politics.”
Farrow obtained emails in the month after that show Weinstein touting a Clinton documentary proposal, surely with the blessing of the former first lady herself, in the asinine hopes that NBC News succeed in definitively killing Farrow’s investigation.
Of course, we all know how the story ends: how, against all odds, Farrow’s bombshell ultimately saw the light of day. After days of silence and Tina Brown and Lena Dunham both revealing that they’d warned Clinton of the Weinstein allegations, Clinton put out a generic statement of condemnation, and Farrow called Merrill with one last offer to include her interview.
“A call with her was hastily scheduled after all,” he says.
A cynic could chalk Clinton’s complicity up to the dollars and cents. For years, Weinstein had been a top donor to her campaigns, organizing A-list fundraisers starring Manhattan’s elite. But not even Hillary’s delusional enough to believe that she’ll ever sit in an elected office as long as she walks this earth. So why, in 2017, with more gobs of cash than the rest of us plebeians could ever dream of and a retirement plan that includes a lifetime of fawning news coverage and famous friends, would Clinton stick her neck out for one fat loser under investigation for raping and pillaging his way from Hollywood to Cannes, France, for a quarter of a century?
Sure, it’s possible that Weinstein had dirt on her worse than the lifetime of sins we all already know or perhaps on fellow mutual friend Lanny Davis.
But Occam’s Razor points to another conclusion, drawn consistently from Clinton’s public career: She hates women as much as she loves proximity to power.
