Harvey Weinstein’s Growing Legal Quagmire

2017 Weinstein Company And Netflix Golden Globes After Party - Arrivals

Harvey Weinstein has now lost his job, his wife, and his reputation. Next on his agenda is the prospect of spending a great deal of time huddling with his lawyers.

The disgraced movie mogul is facing a mounting pile of legal troubles swarming at him from every conceivable direction. The details that have been revealed in allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein, particularly those contained in Ronan Farrow’s reporting for the New Yorker, could result in civil and criminal liability for Weinstein and his company, with legal actions against the former film executive emanating from multiple jurisdictions.

More than 20 women have voiced allegations against Weinstein, claims of which include harassment, groping, forced sexual relations, and even rape. The alleged incidents took place over many decades in numerous locales.

The names of women who have lodged charges in the public square include an unusually high number of well known actresses including Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, Rosanna Arquette, Mira Sorvino, and Kate Beckinsale.

Most of the alleged victims would not be in a position to sue Weinstein in a civil court, due to the relatively short statutes of limitations governing the former mogul’s alleged torts (one or two year time periods).

The alleged assaults took place in many different jurisdictions, including New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, and Utah, as well as the French Riviera, each of which has varying statutes of limitations and time limits on reporting to authorities.

The alleged acts date as far back as 1984. Eight of the incidents allegedly occurred after the 2005 founding of the Weinstein Company. Moreover, the eight settlements Weinstein reportedly reached with former accusers could prevent those women who already settled from taking him to court.

However, Weinstein’s legal problems in the civil arena are just the beginning of an expanding legal vortex. He now finds his alleged actions are the subject of investigations by the FBI as well as the New York and London police, while Los Angeles law enforcement is looking into launching a probe of its own.

Weinstein has been accused of committing both sexual assault and rape. A sexual assault occurs when an individual is offensively touched without consent or compelled to engage in a sexual act. Rape occurs when an individual is sexually penetrated without consent.

Three of the women have alleged that Weinstein raped them. Predictably, the film executive released a statement denying any allegations of non-consensual sex.

Felony rape is a very serious crime, and a conviction in New York can carry a sentence of up to 25 years. Since 2006 New York has had no statute of limitations for first degree felony sex offenses; this law did not take effect until after 2006 and therefore prosecutors would probably be barred by the statute of limitations for crimes that occurred prior to 2006.

The case that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had ready to go two years ago should have been prosecuted. An Italian model cooperated with police to obtain an audio recording of Weinstein admitting that he had groped her, yet Vance failed to bring the charges forward. He had no adequate explanation for his lack of action.

The Weinstein Company itself is also facing potential legal consequences. Female employees of the Weinstein Company could bring individual or class action lawsuits against the company for subjecting them to alleged hostile work environments.

The company released a statement indicating that the “allegations come as an utter surprise to the Board” and additionally that “any suggestion that the Board had knowledge of this conduct is false.”

The New York Times followed this statement with a report that the Weinstein Company directors were informed of at least three confidential settlements with women. One of the remaining board members claimed that although he knew about the settlements he believed they dealt only with consensual affairs.

The former and current directors, including Weinstein himself, could be sued by investors in a breach-of-fiduciary-duty lawsuit. The directors could be liable for their failure to address Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct.

Harvey and his brother Bob Weinstein own 42 percent of the company; this leaves a significant number of outside investors who may go after former and current members of the company’s board, including Weinstein.

Weinstein, as a director and officer of the company, would have breached his duty of loyalty if he acted in bad faith for a purpose other than advancing the best interests of the company. If a co-chairman of a company uses his or her position of power to sexually assault potential and actual employees, it breaches the duty to the firm. It also does considerable harm to the company’s brand and the reputation of the enterprise.

According to TMZ, Weinstein’s employment contract with the company had unusual passages in which the contract explicitly addressed the possibility of future misconduct claims against Weinstein.

According to the website, Weinstein agreed to reimburse the company for any settlements or judgments arising out of his misconduct and to make an additional payment to the company for each instance of wrongdoing. The contract purportedly provided that Weinstein could not be fired for committing heinous acts against women as long as he came up with the required payments.

If the TMZ description of the contract is accurate, it means that former and current board members of the Weinstein Company would have been put on notice of Weinstein’s unlawful behavior and sadly would have deliberately allowed his behavior to continue.

Advertisements

Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood’s Open Secret

ashley-judd-e-harvey-weinstein

The Hollywood left and the Democratic Party are reeling from the recent revelations reported by the New York Times, which describe three decades of alleged serial sexual harassment on the part of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

Each story seems to follow a similar plotline. A young female employee or Hollywood hopeful in search of a film role is invited to what is represented as a professional meeting with Weinstein. Instead of a meeting, though, what the individual encounters is an attempt to coerce various sexual favors.

More that 20 women, former employees and well known celebrities, were referenced in the New York Times report. Weinstein reportedly paid settlements to at least 8 different women, and other media outlets are planning to release further investigative stories about the filmmaker’s purported misconduct.

With the prospect of more sordid details yet to come, the Hollywood left and its favorite political party are feeling the heat. For his part, Weinstein appears to be of the mindset that he can resurrect his image by simply demonstrating his unwavering adherence to the tenets of liberalism.

Despite his stature as a movie executive, bought-and-paid-for connections with numerous politicians, and sizable crisis management machine, Weinstein’s effort to be granted the same latitude as Woody Allen or Roman Polanski does not appear to be working.

The tactical failure may be occurring, in part, because Weinstein’s alleged sexual abuse has a number of high-profile celebrity victims, including actresses Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan.

There is another component that is of even greater import for Weinstein in general and the Democratic Party in particular; that is, the issue of women’s rights and its attendant agenda items, which includes sexual harassment in the workplace. As the mid-term elections loom, liberals can in no way afford to protect a Hollywood filmmaker, even one that has been a prime source of financial support for left-wing campaigns and political causes.

Weinstein assembled a team of political spin doctors and public relations experts to counter recent allegations. He enlisted the help of Democrat public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker and former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn.

He had also brought onboard attorney Lisa Bloom, the daughter of high-powered agenda-driven attorney Gloria Allred, to provide tutelage on feminist principles, and former President Bill Clinton’s chief crisis manager Lanny Davis, who is known for his quick responses to sexual abuse allegations. However, Davis and Bloom have abruptly left “Team Harvey,” perhaps pulling out after Weinstein combined an attempted apology with a threat to sue the newspaper that broke the story.

Weinstein had sent a poorly written statement to the New York Times, which shifted the blame for his behavior on having supposedly grown up in a sexist time. In the same statement, he makes a commitment to seek therapy.

It would be of interest to know whether any of Weinstein’s experts advised him to make the claim that a “right wing conspiracy” is to blame for the predicament in which he finds himself. It would be equally intriguing to know whether he was counseled to include in a release, which was supposedly written to express remorse, his intention to go after the NRA.

Perhaps to demonstrate that he is still trendy after all these years, Weinstein included in his statement a quote, which he purportedly obtained from a Jay Z tune, to somehow partially explicate a long history of alleged harassment. (Reports indicate that no such lyrics exist in any released Jay Z material.)

“Jay Z wrote in 4:44 ‘I’m not the man I thought I was and I better be that man for my children.’ The same is true for me,” Weinstein wrote.

It is predictable that Weinstein would believe that Hollywood would let him off the hook for any abusive behavior toward women. After all, he has held a unique position in Hollywood for a very long stretch. Along the way he was able to grab a Best Picture Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love” and to also create a large number of critically acclaimed films that include “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “Pulp Fiction,” and “Good Will Hunting.”

When he served as head of Miramax along with his brother Bob, he pioneered the art of turning an artsy independent film into box-office gold. Known as the master of the Academy Award campaign, he was able to obtain nominations for lesser known titles. In fact, Miramax snagged an unprecedented 249 Academy Award nominations and was able to secure 60 wins in a mere 15 years.

After Weinstein and his brother left Miramax and started up the Weinstein Co., they were able to use their Oscar formula to win Best Picture two years in a row for “The King’s Speech” and “The Artist.” All the while Weinstein nurtured the image of the consummate liberal, supporting left-leaning causes, particularly feminism, to bolster his progressive bona fides.

In light of the New York Times article, one cannot help but see the irony of Weinstein’s 2015 distribution of “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary that examines sexual assault on American college campuses.

The entertainment community ignored the incessant rumors about Weinstein that circulated for years. Hollywood insiders knew about Weinstein’s purported conduct and in keeping quiet became enablers of the most hypocritical kind.

Reacting to the New York Times article, Rebecca Traister wrote in The Cut, “I have been having conversations about Harvey Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment for more than 17 years,” adding that she had heard from “lots of other people, now other reporters, who were working, often for years, to nail down the story of Harvey’s sexual abuses.”

“It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,” said Kathy DeClesis, Bob Weinstein’s assistant in the early 1990s, as quoted by the New York Times.

“The only thing I’m surprised about,” one former Miramax executive, who worked closely with Weinstein, told the Los Angeles Times, “is how long it took.”

Democrat Collusion

e3983121755b9609613fd57ca66eb579

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the establishment media, and the never Trumpers, after months of investigation there has been no evidence found that would indicate there was collusion during the last presidential election cycle between Russia and the Trump campaign. Likewise there is still no proof that a single vote was changed due to supposed Russian meddling.

Still, the media continue to run with the story as they have from the beginning without having any actual credible grounds that might bolster the Russia story’s veracity.

The Robert Mueller investigation nevertheless persists, seemingly in search of some kind of crime that could possibly support the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to deprive Hillary of her presidential destiny.

Reportedly, the probe has focused on the social media, particularly the possibility that Facebook advertising sales to Russian entities may lead investigators to uncover some heretofore hidden illegalities.

The possibility that founder Mark Zuckerberg and/or other Facebook executives knew about ad purchases from Russian entities and failed to report potential illegal activities to federal authorities has placed the Facebook management directly in the crosshairs of the investigation.

The intriguing twist in this story is that the Russians that Mueller has been chasing actually used Facebook ads in late 2015 and early 2016 to promote the group Black Lives Matter, according to CNN. The advertising was specifically targeted to reach audiences in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, the places from which the racial tension emanated.

The reported objective of the Russians seems to have aligned perfectly with the Democrat Party, the Clinton campaign, and those on the political left. The Facebook ad campaign was, according to the cable news network, seeking to “amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos.”

In a recent turn of events, though, proof of collusion managed to make its way to light. What is startling, however, is that instead of finding evidence of collusion that favored the Trump presidential effort, the proof is pointing toward collusion that actually favored Trump’s opponent, Hillary.

It also turns out that Facebook may allegedly be involved, according to a significantly credible source, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Facebook head Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg evidently colluded with the Clinton 2016 election campaign; this according to emails recently released by Assange.

Using his Twitter account, Assange posted links to emails that were exchanged between then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Sandberg, which showed the COO promoting the Democratic presidential candidate, providing research to her, and meeting with her on multiple occasions during the campaign.

“I still want HRC to win badly,” Sandberg said in an email to Podesta. “I am still here to help as I can.”

Sandberg added, “She came over and was magical with my kids.”

Podesta expressed his gratitude to Sandberg, in a January 2, 2016 email, for her assistance to the Clinton campaign. After wishing her a Happy New Year, Podesta wrote, “2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.”

Zuckerberg himself acknowledged having met with Podesta and asked the campaign head, in an August 7, 2015 email, to refer the Facebook CEO to others with whom he could communicate, presumably in order to assist Clinton with her effort to secure the White House.

“I enjoyed spending time with you yesterday and our conversation gave me a lot to think about,” Zuckerberg noted.

“Thanks for sharing your experiences with CAP [Center for American Progress] and some of the choices you made as you put the organization together. I hope it’s okay if I reach out as my thinking develops to get your ideas and reactions. If there are any other folks you think I should talk to, please let me know. Thanks again,” Zuckerberg wrote.

In an August 7, 2015 email from Facebook Vice President of Communications Elliot Schrage, the contents of the email may point to further involvement by Zuckerberg with the Clinton campaign.

“John [Podesta], I wanted to add my personal thanks, too. Mark [Zuckerberg] can be a demanding and inquisitive student, and he was both impressed and grateful for your time and candor,” Schrage wrote.

The “inquisitive student” was apparently buoyed upon hearing the left wing thoughts of progressive Podesta.

“…your ideas and perspectives really moved his thinking. I know he was focused on the kinds of structures he should put together, but now I suspect he’ll be paying more attention to the types of people he needs – policy entrepreneurs and strategists – as he thinks about next steps,” Schrage added.

“Any and all suggestions are welcome among folks you know or have worked with.” Schrage wrote.

To what kind of “structures” and “next steps” was Zuckerberg referring, and why would the Facebook head be seeking input from Podesta? Logic would dictate that the two were working together to bolster the Hillary campaign.

Mueller and company have a great deal of work ahead of them in exploring the collusion that potentially took place between the Facebook CEO, COO, and the Hillary Clinton campaign, but only if the individuals involved in the investigation are willing to do their jobs.

Chuck Schumer and Democrat Allies Use Jimmy Kimmel as a Political Pawn

1506115848910

After late-night host Jimmy Kimmel used the opportunity of his show to launch a series of attacks on the latest Senate version of the GOP’s health care legislation, many folks were wondering how it was that Kimmel had become such an authority on health care in general, and on the Graham-Cassidy bill in particular.

It turns out that the co-writer of Kimmel’s health care remarks was none other than Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

According to The Daily Beast, for months Kimmel and Schumer had been coordinating behind the scenes to put a wrench in the Republican undertaking of repealing the failing health care system known as Obamacare. Schumer had apparently given Kimmel “technical guidance and info about the bill, as well as stats from various think tanks and experts.”

Kimmel’s spokesman Lewis Kay confirmed to CNN that the late-night host had consulted with Schumer and other groups opposed to the bill. As Graham-Cassidy began to look as though it may have a chance at passage, the partisan New York senator was evidently the one who encouraged Kimmel to use his show as a platform to critique the legislation.

Kimmel’s son had already had to battle congenital heart disease in his infant life. The Democrats apparently saw the opportunity to exploit Kimmel’s family difficulties, using the hardship as a means to attack the Republican proposed legislation by feeding lies to the late-night host. Particularly underhanded was the reframing of the efforts by the GOP to repeal and replace Obamacare as a plan that would fail to protect people with pre-existing conditions such as the one Kimmel’s son experienced.

In an on-air monologue, Kimmel demeaned the legislation for failing to meet the so-called “Jimmy Kimmel test,” a term that Cassidy had used inadvisably as a measure of acceptable health care legislation.

Kimmel seemed more than willing to engage in some Hollywood style virtue signaling while simultaneously relishing the opportunity to disrespect President Trump. He even targeted by name Fox News co-host Brian Kilmeade for calling out the banality of Kimmel’s analysis. Kilmeade had referred to Kimmel as a member of the Hollywood elite, a designation of the late-night host with which few could disagree.

Lost in the media coverage has been the truth that people with pre-existing conditions would not be denied coverage under the GOP’s proposed legislation. However, it appears as though Kimmel was fed purposely misleading information from Schumer and dutifully repeated the lines for his audience.

The influence of Kimmel on the press and social media seems to have accomplished the goal of tainting the image of Graham-Cassidy, which consequently created an opening for the Republican Party non-loyalist, Senator John McCain, to once again attempt to kill the bill.

The late-night host dedicated a series of monologues to emotion-packed health care sermonizing.

Rather than engaging in serious debate, Kimmel put out falsehoods and half-truths, which went wholly unchallenged by the mainstream media.

Democrats took advantage of Kimmel’s health care segments, using them as fodder for advertising and social media posts in an effort to leverage the late-night host’s influence with a sizable segment of the public.

Kimmel became the star of the Democrat political grandstanding sideshow. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) launched a digital advertising campaign that was framed around the “Jimmy Kimmel test” meme. The ads targeted Republican candidates in crucial midterm election states.

As part of a six-figure digital campaign in 12 states, ads appeared in searches by those trying to get information on “health care,” “repeal,” “the Jimmy Kimmel test,” and other topics, redirecting individuals who clicked on the terms to the DSCC’s already existing health care page.

The targeted states were those that were perceived to have the closest upcoming Senate races in 2018: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Democrats also took advantage of the Kimmel coverage by posting comments on social media. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted a video of one of the Kimmel monologues along with a thank you note.

“Stories like yours are why we will defeat #Trumpcare,” Pelosi wrote.

Other high-profile Democrats who took to Twitter in an effort to make the most of the Kimmel criticism of GOP health care legislation included Schumer, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome.

The truth of the matter is that while out boisterously attacking the pending GOP legislation, Kimmel deceptively kept quiet about the fact that one of the highest profile partisan Democrats was supplying him with his politically poisonous script.

It is more than unfortunate that a television personality on a major broadcast network would allow himself to be used as a pawn on a political chessboard.

Jennifer Lawrence’s Latest Film Gets ‘F’ Rating from CinemaScore

9f094c41b14783e3_gettyimages-497460426

By virtually every Hollywood measure, it would have to be said that Jennifer Lawrence has experienced more than her fair share of success over her compact career.

Having earned the title in 2015 and 2016 of highest paid actress in the world, her films have grossed over $5.5 billion worldwide.

The Kentucky born star has been known for possessing an uncanny ability to pick her projects well, while simultaneously nurturing the down-home accessible image that the public finds so appealing.

Things of late seem to have taken a turn for Lawrence, though. Her most recent film is tanking at the box office and her image seems to be suffering from a number of self-inflicted wounds.

Ironically, Lawrence’s box-office run and star status are the stuff of dreams for any Hollywood hopeful or entertainment industry devotee. In her budding career, she had the good fortune of becoming part of two lucrative franchises, with a portrayal of the mutant Mystique in the “X-Men” movies and a role as Katniss Everdeen in the “Hunger Games” film series.

Hollywood decision makers took special note of Lawrence for a role that she played in the 2010 movie “Winter’s Bone,” a film for which she received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress.

She additionally garnered coveted critical acclaim and significant award nominations via her subsequent work with director David O. Russell, receiving an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in “Silver Linings Playbook,” which at the age of 22 made her the second-youngest winner of the award. (Twenty-one-year-old Marlee Matlin won the award in 1986 for her role in “Children of a Lesser God.”) She also received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her work in Russell’s “American Hustle.”

The most recent vehicle in which Lawrence has chosen to star is a movie called “mother!” The film is produced, directed, and co-written by Lawrence’s latest romantic interest, Darren Aronofsky.

Unfortunately, the cinematic piece is pretentious, cluttered, and hopelessly self-indulgent.

The public seems to wholeheartedly agree, having given the film a dismal rating of “F” on the respected CinemaScore survey. The film’s box-office performance is considerably below expectations as well. As a result, Lawrence is experiencing her lowest opening ever, checking in at less than $8 million.

Prior to the lead-up of the film, Lawrence’s brand was well-honed, and she was frequently referred to in the media as “America’s Sweetheart.”

However, her image has suffered some blows of late as a result of having fallen victim to the Hollywood syndrome of believing that along with their entertainment fare folks actually want a heaping serving of celebrity sanctimony.

Most recently, while out promoting her new movie, Lawrence suggested that the devastation in Texas and Florida, which was caused by hurricanes Harvey and Irma, was “Mother Nature’s revenge and wrath” due to the sizable portion of the American people that had voted for President Trump and had failed to embrace the theory of man-caused global warming.

Lawrence had already alienated many would-be filmgoers with her avid support of Planned Parenthood and participation in a video this year against any de-funding for the abortion provider.

Her media image is also in the process of being further tarnished by the anti-Christian content in “mother!” The movie clumsily incorporates biblical themes throughout its storyline.

Aronofsky had previously shown his antipathy for faithful Christians and Jews in his 2014 attempt at biblical storytelling, “Noah,” a movie that he also produced, directed, and co-wrote.

Aronofsky himself revealed on Reddit that he had biblical themes in mind in creating “mother!” He wrote, “…when trying to think about mother earth’s relationship to people I decided to turn to the stories of the bible as a way of describing on [sic] version of people’s story on earth.”

In commenting on the “mother!” movie, Daniel Montgomery of GoldDerby wrote that the film is “being described as the Bible by way of Roman Polanski (‘Rosemary’s Baby’) and Lars von Trier (‘Antichrist’).”

Lawrence has never taken more than a few months between movie projects. In fact, the first trailer for her 2018 Russian spy drama, “Red Sparrow,” was just released.

After the paltry box-office performance of her latest star vehicle, Lawrence may actually be taking a leave from acting so that she can take up a new hobby.

“Today” host Savannah Guthrie asked the actress during a recent appearance on the morning show if she was planning to keep releasing back-to-back films or whether she would be taking a break.

“I’m taking one,” Lawrence replied. “I don’t have anything set for two years.”

Guthrie then asked her what she would do with her newfound time during her two year hiatus.

Lawrence answered, “I don’t know. Start making pots?”

 

George Clooney and Jennifer Lawrence Alienate Potential Moviegoers

imgonline-com-ua-twotone-35heluaid71l

Two of Hollywood’s top celebrities just offended tens of millions of would-be moviegoers with their ill-timed politically charged remarks and over-the-top rants about our current president.

In so doing, the duo may have placed their box-office potential in some serious jeopardy.

George Clooney is on record as being a certified Trump antagonist. In April 2016 he lobbed pejoratives at then-Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump when he referred to the promise to build a wall at the U.S. southern border as a policy that does not represent “U.S. values.”

The actor seemed to echo anchors at CNN and MSNBC as he mindlessly attacked the president’s immigration policies.

Clooney additionally used a string of vulgarities to vilify former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. While speaking at the Toronto International Film Festival to a fawning press, the star characterized Bannon as a “failed f***ing screenwriter.”

Interestingly, Clooney employed the exact same language about Bannon in February of this year while attending the César Film Awards ceremony in Paris.

Apparently preoccupied with Bannon’s film career (16 films produced) Clooney was again unable to control his profane language. He arrogantly claimed that if Bannon had “somehow managed miraculously to get that thing [his screenplay] produced, he’d still be in Hollywood, still making movies and licking my a** to get me to do one of his stupid-a** screenplays.”

Similarly, while attempting to sell his new movie to The Daily Beast, Clooney became unhinged about Bannon.

“Steve Bannon is a pu**y,” Clooney coarsely remarked.

He went on to call Bannon a “little wannabe writer who would do anything in the world to have had a script made in Hollywood.”

Clooney did admit that he had read one of Bannon’s scripts and proceeded to label it “just f***kin’ terrible.”

The supposed pro-refugee actor recently made the decision to move his family to the U.S. over security concerns in the U.K., concerns that are likely related, at least in part, to some serious refugee issues overseas.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that Texas is struggling to recover from Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma wreaks havoc in Florida and the Caribbean, actress Jennifer Lawrence let loose with a number of insensitive remarks that landed her on a roster of Hollywood celebs who have made some of the biggest blunders in PR history.

While out promoting her latest film, Lawrence suggested that the devastating hurricanes in Texas and Florida were “Mother Nature’s rage and wrath” at the American electorate for voting President Trump into office and failing to embrace the theory of man-made global warming.

While speaking to the U.K.’s Channel 4, the actress responded to an interviewer’s question with the following comments:

“You know, you’re watching these hurricanes now, and it’s really hard, especially while promoting this movie, not to feel Mother Nature’s rage and wrath.”

“It’s also scary to know that climate change is due to human activity, and we continue to ignore it, and the only voice that we really have is through voting.”

Lawrence evidently believes that the “rage and wrath” she describes has occurred because of the election of Trump, which she called “really startling.”

The actress told Entertainment Weekly in 2015 that if Trump were to win the White House it would be “the end of the world.” She has purportedly been feeling very distressed ever since that fateful November evening.

When Lawrence experiences distress she reportedly calms herself with a “Kardashian tent,” which is a tent that she has said contains “pictures of the Kardashians and Keeping Up with the Kardashians playing on a loop…”

The actress also supposedly stocks her tent with gobs of gumballs, calling it her “happy place.”

After the public gets wind of their remarks and the box-office results for their respective movies come rolling in, both stars may need to seek the shelter of a “happy place,” complete with gumballs, Kardashian pics, and a pair of matching binkies.

 

Unconstitutional DACA Must Go

DACA

Numerous reports indicate that President Donald J. Trump is rescinding the program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

DACA was unconstitutionally created by the Obama administration. The program violates Separation of Powers, undermines the sovereignty of the United States, and represents the worst of policy decisions. In short, DACA needs to be completely eliminated.

After the press initially raised the notion that the Trump administration may jettison DACA, the left immediately referred to the potential action as bigoted and mean. Attorneys general from the states of New York and Washington also let it be known that lawsuits would be filed against the White House.

Recently, partisan attorneys general from both states issued statements that contained threats of such imminent legal action and condemned the expected rescission action. The very same attorneys general filed similar suits in the past over the temporary travel moratorium President Trump had issued earlier in the year. Other states controlled by the Democratic Party are expected to file additional lawsuits challenging the docking of DACA.

New York A.G. Eric Schneiderman issued a statement that labeled the dissolution of DACA as “an assault on the values that built this state and this nation.” The irony of Schneiderman’s use of the word “assault” is underscored by the astounding disregard for constitutional principles that the Obama administration displayed.

With the stroke of his pen in 2012, President Obama signed DACA into law. Without legal authority to do so, Obama bestowed work permit eligibility, granted access to Social Security and various government benefits, and facilitated the evasion of deportation by individuals who were in the country illegally. The former president did so ostensibly to address the needs of those who illegally entered the U.S. as minors.

Instead of enforcing existing immigration law, Obama, through the action of creating DACA, essentially took away the incentive for people to seek legal entry into the country. The preceding administration breached its obligation to enforce the laws on hand, and in so doing encouraged a new wave of massive illegal immigration.

DACA basically rewards law breakers by granting them benefits that are specifically and exclusively designated for those who are in the U.S. legally. Three Democrats and a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to defund DACA in June 2013.

“The point here is…the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air…,” Steve King, lead author of the legislative amendment, said.

In November 2014 Obama once again ignored the Constitution and overstepped his authority by signing a similar executive action, which expanded DACA in some unusual ways. Again with a mere signature, the former president decreed into existence the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), which granted certain illegal immigrants a quasi-legal status termed “deferred action status” along with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation.

Several states filed lawsuits over DAPA claiming that the action was unconstitutional. A temporary injunction was issued by a federal judge in February of 2015, which essentially blocked the program from going into effect.

The judge’s decision was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time the appellate court chastised Obama for failing to enforce existing law, stating that Obama’s decree “does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.”

In other words, Obama had no legal or constitutional authority to provide government benefits that were disallowed by legislation, which had been duly passed by Congress.

Obama’s overreach undermined the important principle of Separation of Powers by encroaching on the exclusive power of Congress to legislate immigration matters.

Just like DAPA, DACA is blatantly unconstitutional. Congressional members are elected to debate and to engage in lawmaking that will offer fair and meaningful solutions with regard to the issue of immigration.

By getting rid of DACA, President Trump is simply correcting a blatantly illegal and destructive policy framework that should never have been on the books in the first place.