Why yes, yes he does, and the source for this seems remarkable, too. The Hollywood Reporter has a track record of remarkable balance, so it’s not a case of arguing against interests. However, its status as a significant part of the entertainment media industry will force the question of culpability to the forefront, especially given Harvey Weinstein’s prominence in campaigns for the two dominant forces in Democratic politics over the last quarter-century:

Weinstein was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s recent presidential run and donated to her political campaigns about 10 times between 1999 and 2016, according to a review of campaign finance records.

Weinstein’s donations to Clinton over the years total more than $20,000 and span from her successful campaign for U.S. Senate in New York in 2000 to her unsuccessful presidential campaigns of 2007 and 2016. He also donated to her husband’s presidential campaigns in the 1990’s. …

Weinstein threw a fundraiser for Clinton in June 2016 at his home in Manhattan, co-hosted by several A-list actors. He also reportedly attended several other fundraisers for Clinton in New York City during the campaign. Hollywood, generally, was firmly behind Clinton’s campaign, so Weinstein was not alone in his support for the former secretary of state.

Nor was Hillary Clinton alone in benefiting from Weinstein’s largesse. If anything, Weinstein went even more all-in for Barack Obama, turning into a major force for fundraising in Hollywood:

He also hosted fundraisers benefiting Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012 and donated several times to his campaign in 2011 and 2012. Weinstein was considered a “bundler” for Obama’s campaign, as he raised $679,275 for it.

Give the Hollywood Reporter credit for laying this at the feet of the people who most benefit from Hollywood’s political activism, and the crony relationship the Clintons and Obama enjoy with industry leaders. With the New York Times blowing the lid off of Weinstein’s track record, now people have come forward to call his behavior an “open secret” in Hollywood. If so, it’s tough to believe that the Clintons were never warned about it or found evidence for it in their dealings with Weinstein over the last 25 years. (One clear indication that Obama didn’t know: he allowed his daughter Malia to intern with Weinstein.)

While we’re giving THR credit, let’s note that not everyone in the entertainment industry showed the same testicular fortitude. Grabien surveyed last night’s talk shows and came up empty for Weinstein references, save one:

One might think that after one of the biggest names in Hollywood — someone whose made a name for himself working alongside progressive and feminist causes — was shockingly revealed as having covered up decades of sexual abuse, America’s late-night hosts would have a field day.

Instead, Jimmy Fallon, Trevor Noah, Conan O’Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, and Stephen Colbert came up … dry.

The only mention of Harvey Weinstein on all of the late-night shows combined came on “The Daily Show,” during a segment on Cam Newton. The “joke,” featured above, was literally nothing more than Noah pretending to be Cam Newton and saying to reporters at a press conference “Look, Harvey Weinstein!”

Allahpundit was appalled:

Crying is 70% of Kimmel’s act now and he couldn’t spare a tear for Weinstein’s victims? https://t.co/0MEbDlv0hP

— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) October 6, 2017

Of course not. Some of these people might want a job from Weinstein down the road. It’s a lot safer in Hollywood to mock conservatives than it is to speak truth to actual power. They’re not courageous — they’re ankle-biters with fawning audiences.

Speaking of which, when will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama step up and denounce their bundler and benefactor? The silence thus far is deafening.