Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Jeremy Barr  CSPAN  October 16, 2017 11:29am-12:02pm EDT

11:29 am
focus on the agenda in congress this fall, including tax reform legislation, and confirming the president's nominees to president courts. you can read that at thehil l.com. later we will join a discussion about president trump's decision to decertify the iran nuclear agreement. at 1:30, we will take you live to the white house for a press briefing with press secretary sarah sanders. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. jordin us from new york -- ics writer for the hollywood reporter. good morning. guest: good morning.
11:30 am
host: we thought we would bring you on to talk about the democratic party and harvey winestein case but speak to us in the broad sense about hollywood and the democrats and their relationship. how intertwined are they? when did all of that begin and how has in the broad it endured guest: it's been happening for decades. hollywood and actors and entertainers and executives are very, very reliable funders for democrats. basically every major democratic candidate has been able to rely on hollywood to raise millions of dollars. that's why the party is under a spotlight right now because harvey winestein was such a prolific doner to democrats and was able to rangel actors to help out democrats if you needed there was a press conference when ben affleck was help with chuck schumer. a very close relationship between democrats and hollywood. i think that's why this whole story has become a politics story about harvey wine steen
11:31 am
because there is is close relationship. obama, hillary clinton, bill clinton, they were personal friends with harvey winestein, it is not clear how close they were but they appeared together, the candidates came to his house to do fund raisers. and it's not entirely sure how much way winestein had on democrats but he had a direct line i think generally to bill clinton and obama and hillary as well. host: that being said, how have democrats responded so far to the sexual harassment story? guest: i think the response has been a little bit slow. i think a lot of people were caught off guard by this story. and i think people who cover him, this has been an unspoken story that there have been whispers and rumors but no one had nailed the story until the "new york times" did on october 5. and so that big story came out. the new yorker one that came out a little later.
11:32 am
but people basically have been -- reporters went to politicians and said to them, what do you make of this? and people were asking for statements, for explanations. because there was such this -- this link between obama and clinton and wine steen. so democrats have taken their time. some were quick to say i knew nothing about this. this is horrible, the allegations are terrible. and they gave the money back. obviously he has given a lot of money and a lot of democrats have gotten money from winestein. so some of them were very quick. the same day the story came out they gave back the money. it was a small amount. 4,000, but the big story and the big people focused on is that it took obama and hillary clinton five days to respond and they responded on tuesday and the story came out on thursday. so people were wondering what was happening in those five days exactly. were they not going to say anything? because we were trying to get statements from them.
11:33 am
and then tuesday they both said this is shameful, it's horrible. this is not the winestein i knew. but the parties were slow. the dnc the next day on friday said they were going to give back $30,000. the statement saying this is terrible. and they also did an interesting point, the dnc decided to hit from -- in their statement they pointed out that the new york times story came out a year after the access hollywood video. so they were trying to make a connection while also still being apologetic. >> phone numbers are on your creen.
11:34 am
they first talk about the national committees. then you can see a sea of faces beginning with president obama and lots of other familiar faces. tell us more about the donations. personal from his account the biggest role he played was as a bundler. for obama, clinton. so he brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars up to millions of dollars. it goes back a very long way. he's been donating to hillary clinton since early 90s. to her senatorial campaign in new york. it builds over time. dozens of donations. but the biggest impact he had besides his own personal donations was getting big-name hollywood people to give money to democrats. it wasn't just him. e was very well-connected in
11:35 am
hollywood. it wasn't hard for him to sort of call up his friends and have these fund raisers at his home, his beach home, and get 35,000 ticket events where he was going to raise millions in a very small amount. this is not the campaigning that the politicians want to talk about. this is the smaller events for the sort of big-shots that they can raise a lot more money than doing a smaller event sort of event. nie sanders type it was a lot of money. that's why democrats i think -- even as soment of these stories came out, they needed him i think and that's why it was sort of hard to separate themselves. host: here is the reaction from former president obama on weinstein.
11:36 am
>> i was shocked, i was appalled, it was something that was just intolerable in every way. and you know, like so many people have come forward and spoken out, this was a different side of a person who i and many others had known in the past. >> would you have called him a friend? >> yes, i probably would have. and so would so many others. you know, people in democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support. i think these stories coming to light now and people who never spoke out before having the ourage to speak out just
11:37 am
clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged in cannot be tolerated and cannot be overlooked. and i'm hoping that the -- >> do you think it was tolerated because he was -- >> i don't know. >> people paid, people knew. >> i certainly didn't and i don't know who did. but i can only speak for myself, and i think speak for many other who knew him primarily through politics. but the courage of these women coming forward now is really important, because it can't just end with one person's disgraceful behavior and the consequences that he is now facing. this has to be a wakeup call and shine a bright spotlight on anything like this behavior anywhere at any time. we've had a series of
11:38 am
revelations about companies in silicon valley. just sexual harassment and sexual assault being kind of accepted. that's the cutting-edge of our economy. that's where a lot of young people have their first or most significant job. be tolerated anywhere, whether it's entertainment or tech or anywhere. >> senator blum that will says people should give back the money that he donated to be tol. he donated money to you directly and indirectly. would you give the money back? >> well, there's no one to give it back to. what other people are saying what my former colleagues are saying they're going to donate it to charity. of course i do that. i give 10% every year. this will be part of that. host: hearing all of that, do you expect anything to change moving forward based on this story? and if money in politics involved. guest: i think that in the past election hillary clinton sort of hollywood friends and connectionings, i think that it wasn't very helpful for her election.
11:39 am
i think that this is sort of a pop list election so i think people were a little critical of the strategy of appearing with hollywood actors and getting their support. obviously they're very popular buzz it wasn't sort of what maybe voters wanted to see. money's k as long as in politics, as long as they have to raise money hollywood will always be a reliable source of funding for democrats. so it's hard to say. i think the entertainment industry is very hopeful that this is sort of a not a one and done but that weinstein was an aberration to some degree, that he was sort of a brilliant money's guess but there were in to do more soul searching and more examples of potentially more examples of people having to apologize for inappropriate remarks. but it's hard to see democrats walking away from hollywood entirely. >> from coleman, republican line. rumors always. so i think the industry is going
11:40 am
caller: good morning. a little speculation and i would like the guest to speculate. if hillary had been elected would we be hearing any of this? of course my opinion is the democratic party takes care of its own regardless of corruption. and we've seen that with so many things. and we saw how everybody aligned behind bill clinton from the democrats side enever it's obvious of the attacks on women in the white house. but it's basically a culture in the democratic party that -- and the problem i think is the media. the media is a part of the democratic party. can't get away with anything because the media will investigate in great
11:41 am
detail and report in great detail. so the public is protected whenever republicans are in power. but the public has no protection whenever the democrats are in power. so this is a very significant example and i would like comments on that >> thank you. guest: well, i think people have been working on this story about weinstein for yeerings. i don't think there was any sort of connection between his party affiliation and sort of his donations. the outlets -- this story was broken across the spectrum, i think. and as i said, i really don't think that if hillary had been in office that would have changed anything. people really wanted this story and it just took time to get people willing to go on the record, break their nondisclosure agreement. i think he's been not a target but he's been someone that people have known about, that they've been sort of waiting for the right moment to break this story. the democrats are sort of on
11:42 am
the hot seattle right now, but i think -- hot seat but he's also given donations to republicans as well. but i think it's a story that was going to come out regardless of who was in the white house. host: gary, independent caller. yes.r: thank you very much. just have one point why people are cynical about politics. i'm going to be 80. let's focus on one person who was kept under the rug for many years anthony weiner, who was just convicted was a congressman who was a disgration. prior to that hiffs a city councilman but very few people are aware that he was a protege
11:43 am
of his mentor, chuck schumer the minority leader of the united states senate in the democratic party. chuck schumer must have known about his behavior and his antics and tactics. it is horrifying to see somebody convicted who still thinks he didn't do anything wrong until the last minute when he was convicted and cried like a baby. so the leadership in the democratic party has to look at themselves and say why are they covering this up. also, the minority leader of the democrats in the house nancy pelosi is close to 80. she's been in politics her entire life. her mentor was her father, a democratic leader and politician in maryland. she is connected to the democratic party's hollywood group by the umbilical cord. she also knew about this.
11:44 am
that's why people are cynical about politics. and that's why president trump won 2 election. these people do not relate to the common man or the common woman. thank you for listening. guest et's hear from our in new york. guest: well, i think that -- the politicians who have had to talk about this, they all say they didn't guest know and i think it's reasonable to conclude that they're sort of being honest. this was a surprise to everybody. i think they've been asked to explain, hollywood actors have been asked to explain. executives who worked with him have asked to explain. what do they know? hillary's given know and i thin it's interviews where she's had to be honest. she thought of him and a friend and was surprised about that. so there was a lot of trust between the politicians between
11:45 am
weinstein but chuck schumer as the caller mentioned was also close to weinstein. he was a big sort of recipient of weinstein's contributions. so that was another politician put on the hot seat. asked to explain what happened? why did he have this relationship? why did he receive money from weinstein? host: who are the most politically active celebrities these days? guest: well, i think people like ellen dejen riss, progressive celebrities who like to sort of come out and -- some of the biggest actors, an hathaway was one of the biggest people who sponsored or took part in a fund raiser with wine steen. the majority of the big a-list actors when they have gotten involved in politics have come out for democrats generally. with they do it's often wine stine.
11:46 am
but -- and there was some actors, onvoit who came out for trump. there was -- a smaller group of trump-supporting actors. but it was mostly for hillary and that's how it's been historicically, sort of the partisan divide. i talk to people in hollywood and i was told that hollywood actors are very mobilized to i of oppose trump and think you're seeing a lot of tweets. whenever something happens in politics or people are upset about that trump says or does you're seeing a lot of tweets from big celebrities. i think they're trying to have their voice heard. they have very large platforms so i think they're trying to do what they can to be part of the resist ngs from those using the platform. host: what is it like to be a republican or conservative in hollywood these days?
11:47 am
guest: well, i think that they feel like they're not really heard and that they feel that their voice isn't -- people just sort of lump actors and entertainers together and say they're all democrats. but i think that some of them did come out to the rnc during the campaign and they have tried to have a presence and obviously donald trump is -- he was an entertainer and executive hisms. but they don't feel that they -- sort of the popular perception that hollywood is not for them. but i don't think they've come out and said too much about weinstein. it's really democrats and actors and earn tain yers in the hot seat which they don't enjoy being on. but i think that's part of their anti-trump comments and donation that is they've made. host: back to calls. julia, democrat thanks for hanging on. caller: hi. good morning. i am a television executive and
11:48 am
i was wondering if you could talk about the situation and how likely more allegations are to come out against him. guest: well, the reporter broke the story about price and one of our journalists was the person to get jont record comments from the producer who made the allegation against him. so amazon's taking this very seriously as far as we can tell he's been suspended. but i was talking about this over the weekend. i don't think 350e78 really know if there are more issues to drop. we're going to have to wait and see what happens because this this a story that's been out there a little bit. this producer had been made comments and did inappropriate things but until we have the comments on the record and basically until the weinstein the door to en more people come out and sort of go on the record there's a hesitation to name thing that is have been done, inappropriate things that might
11:49 am
have some blow back on people's careers. i think the next few weeks and months will be very interesting. my publicication will be intregged are there more people rumored about. we're now having this national conversation about inappropriate behavior. host: you said you're a tv executive out there in california. what is your sense of the culture or the perception of the culture these days out there in hollywood? caller: i think that in the entertainment industry, women have quietly tolerated comments that have made them very uncomfortable for a long time starting to at's end. host: what makes you think that at this point? just this case or have you star heard or heard about other things? been a think there's tide of people just dinner parties and casual
11:50 am
conversations and people there's just re been enough women -- michelle obama in her last interview as first lady said she doesn't know a professional woman who hasn't been harassed in any industry. so i think more women are coming out casually there's jus other sharing their stories and i think there's been a cultural hift to where kinds of behaviors that were allowed or swept under the rug or people looked the other way because they still made good content i think that's not going to be tolerated any behaviors that more. host: thanks for calling. anything you want to respond to? guest: i think people definitely hope that this is a big change. that they hope this is not sort of a one-off, a bad acter. but someone who doesn't represent the industry. of the biggest issues that journalists deal with is that a lot of the people who like to talk are bound to not say anything by the contracts. so some are not in position where they want to break their contract and potentially lose the money they got from the
11:51 am
settlement. so journalists want to tell these stories or help tell the stories but you need somebody who is willing to take on weinstein and the public tide has turned against him but for a long time he was still very, very powerful. he had very high-powered lawyers. so if you're a regular person or an acter trying to make it in the industry you didn't want to km coout against him. but i think now certainly this is a time when people feel comfortable speaking out. this is sort of an open period where you're hearing a lot of actors and entertainers who whispering are now willing to say it out loud host: one of the many headlines. schumer and at least six other democrats sent weinstein onations to women's charities. aller: good morning. so we have a hypocrite republicans talking about this
11:52 am
weinstein guy. we have a sitting so-called president who is on record who basically assaulted females, multiple females came out accusing him. he was totally ignored and still elected. i've heard reports of him younger girls and keeping it girds not to mention the fox ews. so-called president trump did the same thing and it was totally ignored. he was elected president. so this needs to stop the hypocracy. host: any response? guest: absolutely.
11:53 am
i think that the white house has been very quiet on this issue. they've let the party committees handle it. but i think people realize that it's a pot calling the kettle black scenario with the president. i don't think donald trump if asked about this he said i'm not surprised at all. i know him. this is what i expected. but i think people in the white house, people in the party are a little uncomfortable with this issue. huge doner to the republicans, was very involved with nixon's campaign and there's definitely connection between him and the republicans. they were asked when stories came out about him and he was fired, he had to answer to that as well. so they're not quite comparable but there's no question that i think this is -- people have to tread very carefully in the with the party allegations made against donald
11:54 am
trump. and i think that's why. there have to be standards. week. this last that week. that she was asked about wine steen during the briefing twice and she really didn't say that much. i sort of expected her to go on the attack and connect the democrats and weinstein. that.ally didn't do that might be an admission on her part they don't want to touch this issue. so let the committee and the other committees do that. ost: moving anto new jersey. caller: good morning. as always it is depressing that it is a scandal. "new york times" killed the story and as far as hillary saying all these women coming now have courage, i remember actually standing in front of the white house screaming at her remarks and then she admitted that eight or ten years ago he went after her. how come she didn't say anything then? you know, and hillary being upset about it, i mean, she lived with a guy who was
11:55 am
sexually molesting women. and as far as trump how many women came out and accused trump of sexually molesting them? zero. guest: to the caller's first point, here ts huffington post headline. what do you make about the charges that other outlets had this information, had the story and didn't put it out? guest: well, i think the issue is that people -- you need to be bullet proof. besides the issues that your sources have with coming out on the record about this, media companies are a little scared. there was if media lawsuit that basically ruined a company. people are very, very careful. they're not going to put out a story that meets it unless they have multiple on the record sources. i think the "new york times" -- they put the story out when the story was ready. that's what they always say they do. they don't wait on anything else they're trying to get it
11:56 am
more confirmed. i think people have cloocluded that the issue right now is journalism and dealing with legal threats that they get when they try to report a stry. there have been threats against journalists trying to pursue for years. we understand how it works. nbc is a big company, "new york times" is a major company. they don't want to invite a law suit. they're going to be very careful. the story about the "new york times" killing the story in 2004, as watson claims, she was a reporter. and i think the times basically explained that by saying the story wasn't ready at the time. maybe the outline of the story was there but it needs a lot of proof. but they wanted the story to speak for itself. they didn't want to have to explain why they talked to one person and not the other. so this is a really difficult accomplishment that the new yorker did and the "new york times" did. they both end up owning the story and it's a very tricky
11:57 am
and dangerous story to pursue. host: democratic caller. caller: you know, i just want to echo a comment that a caller couple of voices ago said about trump. in the access hollywood tape he -- trump said it. he said it just like a lot of guys like to hear. all women like it. well, why was trump still elected even though he said it? i don't get it. i mean, it's like people hear it and it goes in one ear and yet they're -- what they want to believe goes in the other ear. and it's all mixed up. i -- trump needs his feet need to be held to the fire. e's the president of the
11:58 am
united states. and yes harvey wine stine did it. i have no doubt. there are so many men around the world that have done this, but united states. and to have the president of the united states say it and say women love it, to me, that's what hurts me as a woman. i've worked all my life in industry and yes it's true that people say it that women don't like it. it's awful. so hold them all to the fire. the president -- it just bothers me that he said it and he says women love it. to me that hurts. that's all i wanted to say. host: thank you for calling. jeremy any thoughts there? guest: well, i think the dnc when they announced last friday that they gave back $30,000 to different charities. i mentioned that their statement these are shocking, horrible allegations but they made this connection between weinstein and trump and they
11:59 am
wanted to make sure people understood that they -- this is a problem they see that trump has as well. this is not just a democratic issue. i think that it wasn't easy for to make the statement we don't condone this, this is horrible but they want to keep in the public mind that there is sort of a multiple -- there is to make the statement we don't condone this, this is som see. but i think most of the actual politicians themselves are not making that -- they don't want to make that risk of trying to connect trump and weinstein. they're going to let the party committees do it. but i think this is sort of -- i think a publicication that republished that led to the allegations of trump. so there is a history and he denied them and there have been threats of lawsuits. but i think people want to keep that in mind that this is not just a one-party problem. host: one last call. louisiana. independent caller. caller: good morning. i used to be a democrat, i used to be a republican. now i'm a proud independent.
12:00 pm
both of the parties are just incredibly corrupt. corrupt. is totally , ill moral. and in fact, if mr. kim would omise to send a missile to hollywood only, i would send the guy a couple hundred dollars to develop his nuclear program. thank you. host: final thoughts? guest: well, i think in this case actors, entertainers, movie stars, singers, they want to be involved politically. think that they -- a lot of them opposed trump and i think they want to have their voice heard. and people might say they shouldn't be involved in the
12:01 pm
process. what do you know? you're just an acter. but there's a long history of actors and entertainers who are popular getting involved. there's been some protests that they don't want to be sidelined just because they're entertainers the them opposed trump and i think same way to have their voice actors don't want to be sidelined. they're going to weigh in to politics. the wine steen thing is a connection that sort of short circuited this whole relationship between hollywood and politics. but i don't think acterors are going to want to sit out going forward. host: jeremy bar, you can read his work at hollywood reporter.com. >> live now coverage from the national iranian american council. they will be discussing think this certification of the iran nuclear agreement. some comments recently made by president trump. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

7 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on