All full of tears and flapdoodle. Democrats are returning Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein's campaign contributions in the wake of revelations that he was a voracious sexual predator. But not to Weinstein, whose donations are tainted by the supposed disconnect between the women's rights they claim to champion and Weinstein's porcine behavior: Just to themselves.

They're laundering Harvey's dirty dollars through Democrat front groups dedicated to electing more Democrats. These include Emily's List, Emerge America, and Higher Heights. And it's only a fraction of what Weinstein donated to the Democratic National Committee anyway: $30,000 out of a collective total of $300,000. They'd rather keep the rest. They also ignore the inconvenient detail about Weinstein himself, whose money is being given back, and blame Trump.

The Hill reports:

The DNC said it chose the three groups “because what we need is more women in power, not men like [President] Trump who continue to show us that they lack respect for more than half of America.”

Some of the more ambitious Democrats, with eyes to higher office perhaps, such as Sen. Liz Warren of Massachusetts, are redirecting their donations to abused women's shelters, which would probably help the victims of wife-beaters, but not the women abused in the workplace as Weinstein's victims were. What's more their cash amounts are small and it's not much skin off their noses to do it. The cash-strapped DNC is different, however, and it would rather just recycle.

That whole premise of 'electing women leaders' is worth looking at in any case. The Democrats have already elected a lot of 'women in power' and that sure didn't stop Weinstein from being one of their choicest donors while plying his sexual behavior. In fact, it rather empowered Weinstein, who specialized in donating to women's causes, while acting like a predatory pig a his own workplace and even in public. Right now, Weinstein has a $5 million donation in the pipeline to University of Southern California's famed film school for the creation of more .... women directors. He also was a bigtime donor to Planned Parenthood, which the left's idea of what women's rights amount to, and rubbed elbows with all the right feminist causes. Feminist causes seemed to be his 'beard' for barbarism because he knew his money would always get these pompous, self-regarding feminist groups to look the other way.

It was the same way for women politicians. Hillary Clinton took in big dollars from Weintein to become president and that sure didn't signal any virtuous intentions from Weinstein, who kept on harassing the interns back at the studio. Would electing another Kamala Harris have prevented Weinstein from preying on Hollywood neophyte actresses and paying hush money to harassed production assistants? Harris of course took cash from Weinstein in 2014, so it's safe to say that her election most certainly didn't. What two of them or ten of them would do, would be just as useless. The reality is, the trope of 'electing more women leaders' is an old argument feminism's critics have blasted at Democrats and feminists as empowering only an out-of-touch feminist elite, not the average working girl subject to predators like Weinstein. Laundering Weinstein's cash through this rationale can only be an insult.