Republicans Can Win in 2020 If They Step Up Their Game

5b67a7612000009f00378fcc

Legendary football coach Vince Lombardi once famously said, “It’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get up.”

Some of the Republican rank and file may be feeling a bit punchy at the present. However, there are a lot more positives than negatives upon which to focus, and the goal in 2020 is very realistically achievable.

After loads of liberal media gloom and doom regarding the fate of the GOP, it may be a surprise for some to hear that, despite the midterm election results, Republicans are in a good position to take the White House again, retake the House of Representatives, and maintain the Senate. That is, if they are able to focus on three key elements: voter data, party unity, and strategically significant issues.

According to the hyperventilating panelists who appear on the left-leaning media news shows, President Trump and the Republican Party are in trouble. The recent court filings made by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen have the talking heads sneering with delight at the prospect of more GOP misfortune.

The lopsided media, though, is not presenting an accurate picture of the political playing field. Since the Republican Party will lay claim to an even larger Senate majority in 2019, the likelihood of Mueller producing sufficient evidence to convince enough GOP Senators to support impeachment proceedings is highly remote. Twenty Republican Senators would have to link arms with the Democrats for President Trump to be removed from office, which is far-fetched, if not impossible.

With President Trump at the top of the ticket in 2020, the GOP will be running an incumbent for reelection, while the Democrats will have the disadvantage of an open, crowded field with a couple dozen presidential candidates who are likely to want to storm the debate stage.

In contrast with the Republicans, Democrats appear to be having serious problems with their voter data infrastructure. Following the GOP lead, the DNC leadership is attempting to combine all of the voter data from Democratic groups into a single entity. However, disagreement between the national committee and the state parties is preventing the compilation of data from materializing.

The state Democrat parties are still smarting from the unusual rules that favored Hillary Clinton to the detriment of Bernie Sanders, as former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile described in her book.

On the other hand, Republican voter data operations appear to be very strong. The voter database used by RNC and the Trump campaign in 2016 took the political world by surprise. Former Trump campaign strategist Michael Caputo does not believe that Democrats will be able to keep up with the president’s data machine. In fact, Caputo said that the Trump campaign will have a data operation in 2020 that will make the use of data in 2016 “look like child’s play.”

In the 2018 election cycle, President Trump held numerous trademark MAGA rallies in states with contested senate seats during the closing weeks of the midterms. The rallies did more than just assist Republicans in winning races. A well-honed approach to building a voter database was being implemented by the Trump campaign working together with the RNC. The two organizations have entered into a data-sharing agreement that will increase the chances of the GOP winning in 2020.

The MAGA rallies provide the perfect opportunity to sign up new potential voters for future elections.

Republicans are actually showing a greater degree of party unity than the experts had anticipated during the tenure of the Trump administration. Meanwhile the Democratic Party is fractured, with its mostly wealthy far-left wing support of candidates such as Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), separating from the objectives and desires of the Democrats traditional working class base.

The far left-wing constituency and donor base continually drive the Democrats to focus on social issues, which tend to alienate working-class voters, the same voters who played a significant role in President Trump’s earth shaking 2016 win. With Democrat candidates supporting open borders, new legal definitions of gender, and taxpayer funding for abortion, they risk losing significant portions of their base.

The Trump campaign and the RNC need to solidify their bond with working-class voters, who are alienated by the Democrats’ left-wing pandering. Simultaneously, they need to articulate pro-family and economic ideas such as school choice, increased parental autonomy for children’s education, and real limitations on the abortion industry.

By focusing on and further refining the same factors that resulted in the 2016 victory, Republicans can enhance and utilize a better database, maintain cohesiveness, and center on resonant issues. President Trump will then be reelected by a large enough margin to bring a significant number of Republican candidates alongside him to victory.

Christmas Past, Present, and Future

choir_625_0

For centuries Christmastime in America was widely recognized as a special season of joy, filled with festive celebrations, heartfelt gift-giving, and, of course, transcendent music that conveyed the faith of so many of our nation’s people.

Unfortunately, what has transpired over the last few decades is a rise of suppression of Christian expression, which has become most evident during the time leading up to this brightest of holidays.

In the not-so-distant past, some institutions of higher learning have seen fit to ban from college campuses Christmas decorations, Christmas gifts, Christmas trees, and even the word “Christmas” itself, according to Campus Reform.

Some vexing seasonal disharmony recently arrived courtesy of the Huffington Post. The publication featured a piece that encouraged parents to prevent their children from saying “Merry Christmas” and to replace the phrase instead with “Happy Holidays.”

Other signs of the country’s divide and the tangential erosion of attitudes toward Christian expression can be found in the results of a telephone poll. The poll, which was conducted in English and Spanish by the Public Religion Research Institute and took place from Dec. 7 to Dec. 11, 2016, with 1,004 adults participating, found that Democrats oppose the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas” more than 2-1 over Republicans.

Something that happened recently in Midlothian, Virginia, though, is particularly emblematic of the situation in which Christ Child well-wishers find themselves. The Robious Middle School banned any carols that make mention of the reason for the season for Christian believers, i.e., Jesus.

School administrators reportedly said that the decision had been made to “avoid singing anything of a direct sacred nature” in order to be “more sensitive to the increasing diverse population at the school.”

The problem with the school’s approach appears to center upon the word “sacred.” The end result at Robious Middle School, and at so many other similar public institutions and venues, is that concerts and festivities will be required to celebrate the season without any mention or even a veiled reference to the birth event of the principal character for whom, according to Gallup, 74 percent of the country’s population joyfully awaits.

Despite public disinformation over the subject, public schools are not legally required to remove the name of Christ from Christmas pageants, concerts, and the like. Also, Christmas carols that use his name are not necessarily considered “sacred,” as the Robious Middle School has characterized them. Christmas is part of the cultural and religious heritage of our country, and the national holiday’s songbook is allowed to be presented as such.

The American culture at large has for years simply allowed the secular and the spiritual to peacefully reside, especially within the music realm, through a seamless tapestry of secular and religious beliefs. A beautiful tapestry, when you think of it, which reflects true diversity and authentic tolerance, encompassing respect and understanding of our fellow neighbors’ identities and belief systems.

Perhaps this year Christmas Future could become Christmas Past once again, at least in celebration and song.

Trump Critics Complain over Troops at the Border

470cdc8700000578-5153149-image-a-43_1512592248104

Since the Trump administration authorized the military to use force along the US-Mexico border, many are raising legal challenges to the president’s border policy by invoking a 19th century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement functions unless specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

According to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, over 5,000 active duty troops are now engaged in supporting missions along the border in Texas, Arizona, and California.

The actions authorized by the White House are those the Secretary of Defense “determines are reasonably necessary” including “a show or use of force, crowd control, temporary detention, and cursory search.” The military has also been given the option to use lethal force, if conditions make it necessary to do so.

It is therefore not surprising that the same media panelists who routinely attack President Trump are ranting about the president violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which stops U.S. military from involvement in most civilian law enforcement roles.

Secretary Mattis stressed the need to keep the military away from civilian law enforcement roles.

“We are not doing law enforcement,” Mattis told the press. “We do not have arrest authority.”

Mattis indicated that, because National Guard troops are also present at the border, the governors of affiliated states could give them arrest authority.

“We’ll decide if it’s appropriate for the military, and at that point, things like Posse Comitatus obviously are in play,” Mattis said. “We’ll stay in strict accordance with the law.”

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes on June 18, 1878. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was subsequently amended in 1956 and 1981.

The Constitution grants the president the power to utilize the armed forces to defend the nation’s territory, as well as to use the military to support civil authorities in preserving the peace.

The Posse Comitatus Act limits but does not eliminate the power of the president to declare “martial law” when local law enforcement and court systems cannot properly function. In such cases, all civilian police powers are assumed by the military. The president must also be able to deploy the military to counter insurrections, rebellions, or invasions.

In addition to the exceptions to Posse Comitatus, which allow the military to support civilian authorities in instances such as national disasters or terrorist acts, a federal law, Title 10, Chapter 13 of the U.S. code, is particularly pertinent.

When the president determines that unlawful “obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the president has the power to “use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

Thousands of foreign nationals intend to engage in an unlawful incursion of U.S. territory, and some of them have already demonstrated a willingness to resort to violence in disregard of the laws of Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has said that as many as 500 criminals and gang members are within the groups heading towards the border. The territorial protection of the nation gives the president the authority to act as commander-in-chief in the case at hand.

Also contained in Chapter 13 is additional power of the president to use the armed forces. The language further states that the president “shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” as long as the insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy “so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection…”

If President Trump has reasonable grounds to believe that the thousands of foreign nationals who reportedly intend to “rush the border” would overwhelm the resources of the border states, and moreover pose a security threat to the border patrol, he is empowered to “take such measures as he considers necessary.”

In the executed directive that granted military authority, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly wrote that “credible evidence and intelligence” indicated that the thousands of foreign nationals, many of whom are now in Tijuana, Mexico, “may prompt incidents of violence and disorder” that could threaten border officials.

Once again the nation may witness the filing of lawsuits with pre-selected liberal federal district court judges, seeking to have the power of the commander-in-chief curtailed.

However, as has also been seen before, it is highly likely that the president’s power to use the military to protect the nation’s citizens, the nation’s territory, and the nation’s sovereignty will be held to be lawful.

Tim Allen: Liberals Have a ‘Very Small Window of Sense of Humor’

tim-allen-networth

In a recent interview with IndieWire, film and television star Tim Allen reacted to the astounding success of his current TV sitcom “Last Man Standing.”

During the interview, the actor provided some insight into his approach to comedy writing and delivery, particularly his use of humor directed at left-of-center ideology.

“I think it’s funny to make fun of people that are full of themselves. Liberals have a very small window of sense of humor about themselves, so I love poking at it,” Allen said.

Allen brought up a current practice in which many liberals routinely engage; that is, the avoidance of rational debate via the mallet of identity politics.

“[R]ight now liberals, particularly progressives, hide behind large concepts,” Allen noted. “If you don’t agree with them, if you don’t agree with that position, then you hate women, and you hate gay people, and you hate pro-choice people…”

Revealing a bit about the motivation behind his style of humor, Allen said, “I like p***ing people off,” adding that “…there’s nothing, especially in this area, that p***es people off more than a very funny conservative.”

“A smart, funny conservative that takes shots and is certainly self-effacing. The left-wing point of view is so pervasive that they don’t even realize it’s a point of view,” Allen said.

Allen’s show is in its seventh season, having enjoyed six successful seasons, until ABC inexplicably canceled it and Fox brought it back. The Fox network picked up “Last Man Standing” and has been running away with it in the ratings. The actor has rightly questioned whether ABC chose to get rid of the successful sitcom because of Allen’s personal political positions, an explanation that is certainly within the realm of possibility.

“When we knew Tim was up for doing it, we jumped at the chance,” Fox Entertainment President Michael Thorn said. “He’s obviously a huge TV star, and we felt the show could resonate for our audience.”

Helping with the decision was the huge ratings success of the reboot “Roseanne.” It was certainly not lost on the Fox executives that both shows were family-oriented comedies, with lead characters that possess conservative political views.

Ironically, “Roseanne” was also canceled by ABC. And ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey, who terminated sitcom star Roseanne Barr, is now on her way out amid ABC corporate parent Disney’s pending acquisition of 21st Century Fox and the planned reorganization of Disney television.

Adding to ABC’s headaches is the fact that the replacement series for “Roseanne,” “The Conners,” is tanking in the ratings. The network has committed to only one additional episode, sparking rumors that the show may be canceled. Additionally, it has been reported that two of the shows stars, John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf, have been asked to take a pay cut.

Meanwhile with “Last Man Standing” Fox is basking in the sunlight of sitcom success. The show’s Sept. 28 debut was Fox’s most-watched Friday telecast in 18 years, with a whopping 2.7 rating among adults 18-49 and 12.4 million multi-platform viewers. Fox has been at the top in the difficult Friday night lineup for six weeks, its longest streak in more than seven years.

“I certainly bumped into a number of people who had never seen the show when it was on ABC, that had found it in syndication. So I was hoping it would get maybe a little bit of boost. I did not expect that number,” Allen said.

Reportedly, Fox plans to place “WWE Smackdown” on Fridays next year, so “Last Man Standing” will likely move to a mid-week spot next season. Until then you can still catch it on Fridays at 8 p.m. on Fox.

In an age of cord cutting and streaming entertainment, Allen still sees advantages in traditional broadcasting. The actor loves the ability of traditional broadcast television to be capable of incorporating current events and issues into the programming. He refers to this attribute as “fresh television.”

“I think eventually, you come back to broadcast television,” Allen said. “This isn’t streaming. Streaming to me is processed food. You don’t know when that was made, you don’t know, there’s no expiration date on it. This stuff was made recently. You get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and to all of us on broadcast, we’re doing this right now. This is fresh television.”

‘SNL’ Apology Is the Real Deal

lead_720_405

This past weekend “Saturday Night Live” showed how an apology is done.

Producer Lorne Michaels, cast member Pete Davidson, and writers of the show expressed their sincere contrition for the wrong committed during the previous week’s show. In an interesting sidebar to “SNL”’s faux pas and subsequent public apology, it looks as though a new GOP figure has emerged with a future as bright as the stars.

Dan Crenshaw, a veteran of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ran for Congress in the recent mid-term elections in a district in Houston, Texas. The former Navy SEAL wears an eye patch, because his right eye was lost as a result of an I.E.D. explosion that took place in Afghanistan while he was serving the nation.

Crenshaw was the object of vicious “SNL” ridicule, when, during the “Weekend Update” segment of the show, Davidson, displayed a picture of him with his eye patch intact and said, “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hit man in a porno movie.”

“I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war, or whatever,” Davidson added with a smirk.

Three days after being mocked on “SNL,” the congressional GOP candidate won his election by a resounding 8 point margin. During his victory speech, Crenshaw acknowledged the “SNL” swipe at him, saying, “I’m from the SEAL teams. We don’t really get offended.”

The following day, in an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” the representative-elect was asked about the “SNL” skit, and he shared that it may have helped him secure a victory in the election.

“I have to imagine it probably helped. There are a lot of veterans out there who would not think their wounds would be the source of poor jokes in bad taste to a hysterically laughing audience,” Crenshaw said.

After the segment aired, Michaels, Davidson, and “SNL” received sharp criticism from folks on both sides of the political aisle. Davidson’s comments were even denounced by fellow “SNL” cast member Kenan Thompson, who in an appearance on “The View” said, “It’s never somewhere I would go, in the offense territory towards veterans, because my father is one.”

“They’re figuring out a way to right that wrong, I’m pretty sure,” Thompson added.

The “SNL” producers and writers proved Thompson correct by coming up with a way to express the show’s regret to Crenshaw in a manner that was humorous, effective, and inspiring.

Davidson once again took to the “Weekend Update” desk, this time saying, “In what I’m sure was a huge shock for people who know me, I made a poor choice last week.”

He continued, “I mean this from the bottom of my heart. It was a poor choice of words. The man is a war hero, and he deserves all the respect in the world. And if any good came of this, maybe it was that for one day, the left and the right finally came together to agree on something. That I’m a [expletive].”

Suddenly, in a surprise cameo Crenshaw appeared in a seat next to Davidson and said, “You think?”

Davidson then thanked him for coming, to which Crenshaw cracked, “Thanks for making a Republican look good.”

After Davidson offered his face-to-face apology, Crenshaw graciously accepted it. Immediately, the congressman-elect’s cell phone began ringing with the distinct sound of an Ariana Grande ringtone. The rub is that Grande happens to be Davidson’s former fiancée.

Crenshaw was then afforded the opportunity to have even more fun at Davidson’s expense. As unflattering pictures of Davidson were displayed, Crenshaw, with impeccable timing and stand-up flair, delivered the following punch lines:

“He looks like if the meth from Breaking Bad was a person.”

“He looks like a troll doll with a tapeworm.”

“Pete looks like Martin Short in The Santa Clause 3.”

“By the way, one of these people was actually good on ‘SNL.’”

Davidson acted as though he was taking the tough ribbing in stride, but the whole thing was, of course, pre-planned. However, the final portion of the segment turned out to be serious and quite compelling.

Crenshaw displayed formidable statesman-like skills as he spoke about how “Americans can forgive one another.”

“We can remember what brings us together as a country and still see the good in each other,” he noted.

He also referenced Veterans Day and encouraged the audience to express their respect and gratitude to our veterans, especially through the use of one particular phrase.

As Crenshaw explained, “When you say ‘never forget’ to a veteran, you are implying that, as an American, you are in it with them — not separated by some imaginary barrier between civilians and veterans, but connected together as grateful fellow Americans who will never forget the sacrifices made by veterans past and present.”

In a touching reference to Davidson’s loss of his own father, who was a New York firefighter and first responder on that tragic Sept. 11 day, Crenshaw said, “… never forget those we lost on 9/11, heroes like Pete’s [Davidson] father. So I’ll just say, Pete, never forget.”

“Never forget,” Davidson said, as the two shook hands.

Davidson then turned to the audience and said, “And that is from both of us!”

At that moment, if you listened with your heart you could hear the echoes of the sentiment resonate across our land: #NeverForget.

Democrats’ Policies of Past Match President Trump’s Present

Nancy_PelosiBarack_ObamaChuck_Schumer

When it comes to the issue of immigration, a lot of Democrats are singing a different tune than the one the Party sang in the past.

The current crop of Democrat leaders are advocating for open borders, throwing their support behind so-called sanctuary cities and states, seeking to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, and believe it or not, actively engaging in voter registration of non-citizens. Some leaders are even pushing to completely abolish ICE, the very agency responsible for enforcing border security.

As a result of some of the policies that the Trump administration has implemented, especially the policies that attempt to enforce the rule of law, a sizable segment of the Hollywood community thinks, most likely erroneously, that they have found a safe opening through which they can enter the political arena. The safe opening to which I refer is what left-wing activists have labeled the “separation of families.”

In truth, President Trump put an end to the separation practice implemented by the Obama administration; however, this fact has been ignored by members of the Hollywood left, which like so many other individuals and groups, are increasingly becoming unglued.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, George and Amal Clooney mused aloud about whether children of the future would ask if our country took babies away from their parents and “put them in detention centers…”

Ellen DeGeneres posted that “we can’t be a country that separates children from their parents.”

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Willie Nelson opined, “What’s going on at our southern border is outrageous…What happened to ‘Bring us your tired and weak…’”

Jim Carrey posted a cartoon painting of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in front of a chain link cage.

Jessica Chastain asked, “Are we really such monsters?”

Mark Hamill tweeted a political cartoon of children in cages.

As a tribute to her father, Anne Hathaway made a donation to Americans For Immigrant Justice for the purpose of honoring “all the fathers torn from their children…”

J.K. Rowling tweeted, “The screams reverberating around the world are coming from terrified children in cages.”

The intriguing thing is that a short time ago Democrats had an entirely different perspective on immigration. In fact, many sounded as if they were partially, and in some cases even totally, in accord with the views of the Trump administration.

Back in 1993 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.”

That same year former senator from Nevada Harry Reid said, “…the American people think our immigration policies are a joke when we select 40,000 new immigrants a year by lottery.” Reid also stated that Americans were concerned about immigration laws because the “net costs of legal and illegal immigration to all levels of government” would be a ridiculously large, a whopping “$45 billion over the next decade.”

In 1994 Feinstein again chimed in on the immigration issue with a political ad showing illegal immigrants crossing the border. She also promised to deal with illegal immigration with more “agents, fencing, lighting, and other equipment.”

In 1995 Bill Clinton said, “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” The former president also stated that the jobs illegal immigrants obtain “might otherwise be held by citizens,” and that illegal immigrants “impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

In 1998 then-congressman Chuck Schumer put out a call for New York’s Attorney General to “bar students from nations designated as terrorist sponsors.” He also insisted that students should not be “using American universities as terrorism training academies.”

President Trump recently tweeted a 2005 video in which then-senator Barack Obama said, “Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.” Obama added, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”

In 2006 then-senator Obama wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment.” That same year, Obama suggested that “better fences and better security along our borders” would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

Also in 2006, a majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of legislation for the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 2007 Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) railed against “…allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people into this country to do the work that Americans should be doing.”

In 2008 the Democratic platform warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.”

And again, in 2008, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the “challenge” of illegal immigrants, saying that “we certainly do not want any more coming in.”

In 2009 Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that “when we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.”

In 2013 former President Obama promised to put illegal immigrants “to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.” And in 2014 he said that an “influx of mostly low-skill workers” threatens “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

By 2016 Democrat Party leaders had eliminated from their platform and speeches all talk of border security as they seemingly became convinced that the size of the legal and illegal immigrant population had given them enough electoral leverage to abandon working class Americans.

Most of today’s Democrats are deliberately embracing sovereignty-destroying open border policies and intentionally favoring those who are in the country illegally over their own citizen constituents, which means they have gone further left than pretty much anyone in the Party’s past could ever have imagined.

Megyn Kelly’s Legal Battle Ensnares NBC News Chair Andy Lack

lack-kelly-nbc-696x392

It looks like Megyn Kelly is playing hardball with the Peacock network.

Her television show “Megyn Kelly Today” was summarily canceled a short two days after a controversial episode of the show aired on NBC.

The episode in question contained an anecdote told by Kelly, which many found offensive and consequently set the social media ablaze.

“What is racist?” Kelly asked a panel. “You truly do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on whiteface … That was OK when I was a kid, as long as you were dressing like a character.”

The social media backlash that ensued caused Kelly to be tried and convicted on the Internet of racism.

NBC personality Al Roker made it a point to weigh-in against the former Fox News anchor, saying, “The fact is while she [Kelly] apologized to the staff, she owes a bigger apology to folks of color around the country.”

Possibly believing that she could make things right, at the opening of the subsequent show Kelly offered an emotional apology and received a standing ovation from the in-studio audience. In addition to the public apology, she sent a contrite letter to her colleagues.

The apology and letter were essentially ignored by NBC News brass. NBC News Chairman Andy Lack slammed Kelly’s on-air comments during a town hall event that he held for news division staff.

Various sources told several media outlets that discussions about ending Kelly’s show had taken place prior to the “blackface” remarks. Some of these sources told US Weekly that NBC management had been looking for an opportune excuse to get rid of Kelly, due to her aggressive coverage of the #MeToo movement that included segments dealing with NBC scandals.

Kelly had covered Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw’s alleged sexual misconduct, giving NBC executives, which included Lack, a motive to want her time at the network to end.

A Lauer accuser, Addie Zinone, appeared as a guest on Kelly’s show. With regard to Brokaw, Kelly was not counted among the women who had pledged to support him after Variety and the Washington Post released reports of his alleged sexual harassment of former NBC and Fox News correspondent Linda Vester. Kelly was also vocal in her call for an independent legal investigation of Lack himself, regarding the alleged spiking of Ronan Farrow’s coverage of Harvey Weinstein.

Kelly has now signaled that she will fully engage in a legal battle with NBC as she negotiates an exit from her contract. Presently, she has left Creative Artists Agency because of a potential conflict, since the agency also represents NBC News President Noah Oppenheim. She has also hired experienced entertainment business trial lawyer Bryan Freedman, one of Hollywood’s top talent-side litigators.

Freedman shrewdly requested that Farrow sit in on the NBC meeting concerning Kelly’s departure. Kelly’s attorney is undoubtedly aware of the fact that Lack’s news division has been under scrutiny for refusing to air Farrow’s reporting on Hollywood producer Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.

Kelly’s negotiating leverage regarding her exit package appears to be enhanced since Lack, who was a major player in Kelly’s firing, is now on the hot seat.

Unfortunately for the chairman and his network, Lack has had a series of problems that have amassed under his leadership, including the following:

-During Lack’s tenure, Farrow left NBC News in the midst of his investigation of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. The journalist claimed he “was being blocked from further reporting.”

-Lack oversaw the scandal over MSNBC personality Joy Reid’s discredited claim that before she became well known, hackers had planted homophobic slurs on her blog.

-Lack was in charge when NBC News waited almost a month before it finally revealed evidence that discredited allegations made by lawyer Michael Avenatti’s client Julie Swetnick against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

NBC News knew that a witness, who Avenatti claimed had corroborated Swetnick’s allegations, had accused him of “twisting” her words and in essence recanted her testimony. The network has not put this particular scandal behind it, since Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has referred both Avenatti and Swetnick to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation relating to the issuing of false statements to the Committee.

-Perhaps most importantly, Lack is the executive who is responsible for negotiating Kelly’s 3-year $69 million contract.