Almost 2,500 years ago Greek fabulist Aesop sagely advised,
“A man is known by the company he keeps”.
A modern analogy is seen in whom one chooses to break bread with. This concept particularly applies to the slippery
Clintons, and the now disgraced movie mogul they chose to dine with on
December 13, 2016. That Hollywood
bigwig is today’s accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. According to photographs—mysteriously only
recently uncovered by Britain’s Daily Mail, not the mainstream media—Hillary is
seated between two men accused of sexual assault; the other being her husband
Bill. Ah, the “hiddenness” of such open
secrets—and the curious concealment of related pictures.
Historically, Hillary knew about Bill’s “bimbo
eruptions” in the 1990s. Another
Clintonian open secret: long denied until the irrefutable DNA on Monica
Lewinsky’s blue
dress. Likewise, in her
decades-long friendship with Weinstein, is it possible that she didn’t know
when everyone in Hollywood seemed to?
At the exclusive East Harlem eatery called Rao’s—mere weeks after her
failed presidential campaign—Hillary is fraternizing with such a man? Given her stinging
political defeat one would reasonably infer she would surround herself with
trusted intimates. That means either
she didn’t know or she didn't care.
Either way, what would Aesop say about her character, or theirs?
The suppression of questionable photos involving prominent
Democrats is nothing new. Another
telling example is an obscure image taken at a weekly Congressional Black
Caucus lunch back in 2005. A single
frame shot by Askia Muhammad and hidden by him for 13 years. The main subjects were then freshman senator
Barack
Obama and the minister Louis Farrakhan: the highly controversial
anti-Semitic, anti-white and anti-gay leader of the Nation of Islam. (For context, per the New York Times, Mr.
Farrakhan described Adolf Hitler as “a
very great man” in 1984.) If
exposed then, what would the electorate have thought of photographic proof of
connection between both men?