Social Media Memes Obscure Bombshell Revelations in Strzok Testimony

peter-strzok23

Peter Strzok is the former Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI. He is the same individual who led the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit use of a personal email server.

Strzok became Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position within this division. He led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and was part of the investigative team on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel probe.

Strzok recently testified before two House committees about the explicit and clear animus that he expressed toward then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. He did so while simultaneously showing his utter devotion for then-candidate Hillary Clinton, via tens of thousands of text messages with his then-paramour FBI attorney Lisa Page.

Under the oversight function with which Congress is charged, it must determine whether the manifest bias exhibited in Strzok’s text messages influenced his work on three very important investigations, ones that rank among the most serious in modern history.

After the testimony of the FBI agent had been completed, the social media was abuzz with memes that consisted of pictures and video footage showing some rather bizarre facial expressions and body movements on the part of Strzok.

The memes had a potentially negative effect in that, rather than enlightening the public, they served to detract from the substance of Strzok,s testimony.

Meanwhile most of the mainstream media avoided acknowledging points made by GOP representatives and continuously painted Strzok as a victim of Republican persecution.

As if they had torn a page from the Alinsky playbook, Democrats did their best to obstruct and disrupt the hearings with rapid fire interruptions, incessant points of order, and countless motions, timing their outbursts to those moments when Strzok was asked a probing question.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen had the gall to talk about a desire that Strzok be given a Purple Heart for his work on the investigations, which was a serious insult to members of the armed forces who have received this distinguished honor.

The Democrats, their media allies, and broadcast television’s late-night hosts portrayed Strzok as a hero, ignoring how he attempted to explain away as mere joshing texts that called residents of Loudoun County, Virginia “ignorant,” and that the smelling of Trump supporters in a WalMart merely meant that he was aware of their presence.

The “we” in “we would stop Trump from getting elected” was supposedly a reference to all of the American people, and according to his testimony, Strzok wrote and sent tens of thousands of texts in which he did not say what he meant.

Even though Strzok was taken off the Mueller investigation for bias, according to Sztrok’s answers bias did not exist, but instead he was removed because of the “appearance of bias.”

Lost amid the strange footage of Strzok, which rapidly spread across the social media landscape, two bombshell revelations were unearthed that were new to the public and the press. The first occurred during questioning by Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert and came immediately after an exchange in which Democrats went into hysterics over Gohmert questioning Strzok as to whether he wore the same grin when he lied to his wife about having an extramarital affair.

Although the outburst by the Democrats sounded rather rehearsed, it did manage to distract from the pertinent information that was about to be exposed. Via his questions to Strzok, Gohmert revealed that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) had informed Strzok that forensic analysis of metadata from Hillary Clinton’s email had indicated that over 30,000 of Clinton’s emails had been forwarded to the email address of a known hostile foreign entity, and that this entity was not Russia.

Gohmert stated that Frank Rucker, an ICIG investigator, presented the forensic findings to Strzok but no action whatsoever was taken by Strzok to pursue the significant intelligence matter. Strzok acknowledged having met with Rucker but claimed that he could not recall the “specific content.”

“The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, telling Strzok, “You were given that information and you did nothing with it.”

What possible explanation could there be for a highly placed FBI official failing to diligently pursue such a significant intelligence breach? Bias appears to be the most sensible explanation.

Still, there is an even more important revelation that arose during questioning conducted by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. The revelation deals with a fundamental question: What exactly was the basis for launching a major counterintelligence investigation that targeted the Trump campaign?

Strzok acknowledged under questioning by Jordan that the fourth ranking official at the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, supplied the FBI with documents that were the basis for the counterintelligence investigation. Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, conducting opposition research against then-candidate Trump, which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The material Ohr provided was compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and consists of documents that are known as “the dossier.”

“This is the first time, to my knowledge, the FBI has admitted they got parts of the dossier from Bruce Ohr, a fellow DOJ employee,” Jordan told Sean Hannity during a Fox News appearance.

The revelation confirms the fact that an unverified, unreliable dossier, which was purchased as opposition research by Clinton’s campaign, formed the basis by which a counterintelligence investigation against Clinton’s opponent in the presidential election, namely now-President Trump, was launched and was soon used to obtain FISA warrants to surveil members of her opponent’s campaign.

Advertisements

Hollywood Has a Meltdown over Roe v. Wade Film

16867473389_38224ac3ea_b

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The memorable line by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” fits like a glove.

When it comes to subject matter that is outside the leftist box, Hollywood just can’t endure any factual information coming to light, as witnessed by the massive overreaction by the entertainment elite to a pro-life project that is currently in production.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film, which deals with the backstory of the landmark decision that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, is being shot in Louisiana. Its working title is “1973,” a reference to the year of the Supreme Court decision that polarized the nation.

The left is particularly rattled over the abortion issue right now since President Donald Trump is naming a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court.

Nick Loeb, a banking heir who formerly dated actress Sofia Vergara, is directing the movie and began filming in mid-June. He told the Hollywood Reporter that his court battle with Vergara over access to the couple’s frozen embryos prompted him to do the film.

“I have my own pro-life issue going on with my fight over embryos, but no one has really told the whole truth about Roe v. Wade in a film,” Loeb said.

Aware of the disdain that the entertainment industry has for the pro-life perspective, Loeb initially attempted to be low key about the project, cast and crew so as to forestall the backlash that would inevitably come.

However, when Loeb told LifeNews about his motivation behind the film, he left subtlety behind. “This is the untold story of how [abortion activists] lied and manipulated Jane Roe, the media, and the courts into the decision to allow abortion in 1973,” Loeb said.

In knee-jerk fashion, the entertainment press began trashing the film, despite the project not having been completed, edited, or screened.

–The Daily Beast published a piece with the headline “‘Roe v. Wade’ Script Leak: Pro-Life Movie Pushes Conspiracy Theories and Lies.”

–A Huffington Post headline read “Anti-Abortion Movie About Roe v. Wade Is Pushed By Nick Loeb.”

–The New York Daily News used the following title for an article on the movie: “No one wants to help Nick Loeb make his anti-abortion film ‘Roe v. Wade.’”

Particularly snarky was the Daily Beast’s characterization of the project as a “movie in chaos,” describing cast and crew departures due to the nature of the subject matter. And the Hollywood Reporter indicated that a costume maker, electrician, and director had walked off the project.

The subject matter also created difficulties for Loeb’s choice of filming locations. Loeb shared the following about a request that was made to shoot at Louisiana State University: “We were told we were rejected due to our content, even though it will be a PG-rated film. They refused to put it in writing, but they told us on the phone it was due to content.”

Even after the production was permitted to use a local synagogue, the crew was kicked out after the leaders found out about the movie’s message.

“Once they found out what the film was about, they locked us out. We had to call the police so that the extras and caterers could retrieve their possessions,” Loeb told the Hollywood Reporter.

Facebook blocked crowdfunding for the film, but it is still ongoing at GoFundMe and IndieGoGo.

The Daily Beast obtained a copy of a leaked script that reportedly showed the project’s “severe anti-abortion stance.” The Beast is apoplectic that the narrator of the story is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (portrayed by Loeb). Nathanson happens to have co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). However, after having witnessed the details of an abortion procedure via ultrasound, he became a dedicated pro-life activist.

Nathanson became an archenemy of the left after having narrated the profoundly compelling 1984 pro-life film “The Silent Scream.”

The cast of the upcoming pro-life movie includes many openly conservative Hollywood residents including Stacey Dash, who portrays Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jon Voight, Robert Davi, Corbin Bernsen, John Schneider, William Forsythe, Wade Williams, Richard Portnow, and Jarrett Ellis Beal, who portray Supreme Court justices; and Jamie Kennedy, Joey Lawrence, and Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey Grammer) are also cast members.

Adding to the left-wing discomfort are some cameos courtesy of commentators Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos.

The film’s executive producer is pro-life advocate Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“This big screen movie is the real untold story of how a mountain of lies led to an injustice that deprived millions of people of human dignity and human rights,” King says in the trailer.

The untold story includes Planned Parenthood’s scheme to recruit a pregnant girl to file a lawsuit that would create a right to an abortion. According to the film’s description, Nathanson, Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood searched “the country to find a pregnant girl” that they could “use to sue the government for her right to have an abortion.”

The film also takes on the forbidden facts concerning the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Despite the left’s attempts to minimize Sanger’s fondness for eugenics, Sanger solicited eugenicists’ writings for her conferences, asked them to testify in congressional hearings, and gathered them together to advance the cause.

Sanger also urged state-imposed compulsory sterilization and segregation of people with mental or physical disability, those in poverty, and those considered illiterate. She sought out eugenicists to become board members of her American Birth Control League, the predecessor organization to what is now known as Planned Parenthood.

Hollywood Aligns with the Democrats to Try and Get Rid of ICE

33b6bce9-d8ba-4eb9-a850-98c9252c3442-large16x9_ap18179734713168

Hollywood celebrities recently made their presence felt at gatherings across the country, ostensibly to protest the separation of children from their illegal immigrant parents, a policy that actually existed during prior presidential administrations.

Similar to other nationwide events that the left has managed to engineer, this one had a social media hashtag name attached to it: “Families Belong Together.”

Left-wing groups are apparently choosing to ignore President Trump’s recently signed executive order, which ended the policy of separating children from their detained parents after the parents had illegally crossed the United States border.

In Los Angeles, protestors were joined by actors Laura Dern, Mira Sorvino, and Connie Britton, along with singer John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen. Legend used the opportunity to debut his newly released single.

In New York City, actors Kerry Washington, Amy Schumer, Alec Baldwin, Ellen Page, and Carrie Coon participated in the march.

In Washington, D.C., Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda, singer Alicia Keys, and actors America Ferrera and Diane Guerrero took part in demonstrations.

Many who were at the Downtown L.A. rally called for the dismantling of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE, and even carried signs that read “Abolish ICE.”

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a group involved in the march on the West Coast, issued a statement that spoke of how the agency was “terrorizing…entire communities,” adding the admonition that “all of these violations will continue to take place unless ICE is abolished.”

The “Abolish ICE” movement has dramatically morphed from a position that was held by a socialist fringe to a political slogan that is embraced by significant national Democratic office holders and candidates.

After a surprise upset primary win by 28-year-old self-described socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the victor’s central slogan “Abolish ICE” began to spread throughout the left-wing infrastructure.

The first sitting senator to embrace the trend was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who declared that the U.S. should “get rid of” ICE and “start over.”

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted, “ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted on Facebook that the nation should replace “ICE with something that reflects our values.”

Sen. Kamala Harris and former actor-turned-New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon both hopped on the bandwagon as well.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal called ICE a “rogue agency,” and Rep. Mark Pocan announced that he would be introducing a bill to abolish the agency.

As the proposal gains momentum with those on the left side of the political aisle, a brief analysis is warranted, which will hopefully bear fruit.

The notion of doing away with ICE has profound ramifications with regard to national security, law enforcement, and border integrity. ICE was formed following the horrific terror attacks of September 11, 2001; this was the same time period during which the Department of Homeland Security was created.

The functions of several border and revenue enforcement agencies were consolidated into ICE, resulting in it becoming the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

–The agency handles the investigatory work and enforcement of over 400 federal statutes and additionally provides attachés at major U.S. diplomatic missions overseas.

–The agency’s all-important activities impact national security with regard to investigation for the prosecution and removal of foreign-born terrorists, terrorist supporters, and hostile foreign intelligence agents located within the United States.

–The agency regularly provides counter-terrorism information in order to prevent and disrupt terrorist cells.

–The agency is also charged with important policing functions and targets violent transnational street gangs in order to prosecute and remove illegal immigrant gang members from the country.

–The agency investigates criminal drug traffickers, manufacturers and distributors of images of child abuse, child exploiters, money launderers, arms dealers, and intellectual property counterfeiters.

The idea of abolishing an agency that is responsible for so many vital functions is a flat-out dangerous one, and the more people learn about this essential agency called ICE, the less willing they will be to support anyone who would advocate its abolition.

Seth Rogen Spreads His Hate Around

c7affe6db7a6cbdcbb6486a28e0e62dc_800_420

Seth Rogen has a strange way of showing love for his fans.

The Canadian actor recently appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and told a story about how he laughingly rejected some fans that had requested to have their photos taken with him.

Maybe Rogen was trying to shore up his reputation with some of his leftist Hollywood pals, many of whom have been hysterical about the U.S. border policy.

The Rogen fans who were rebuffed turned out to be the children of the current Speaker of the House and the Speaker himself.

In his Colbert appearance, Rogen describes a summit to which he had been invited to speak, an event that was hosted in early June 2018 by former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The gathering was held ostensibly to assist in finding a cure for Alzheimer’s.

However, it seems as though Rogen may have been uncomfortable about having been present at a GOP gathering. His likely discomfort may account for his peculiar willingness to boast about his despicable behavior toward fans who prior to this occasion had likely looked up to him.

In relaying the story, Rogen tells of how two “young fans” that he characterizes in racially charged terms as “very white” approached him and told him that their dad was a fan and would like to meet him.

Rogen soon realized the father was none other than Paul Ryan. The actor described the meeting in the following way: “My whole body puckered, I tensed up, and I didn’t know what to do,” Rogen said. “And I turned around and Paul Ryan was walking towards me.”

After shaking hands, Ryan requested that Rogen allow a photo to be taken with the Speaker and his children, but Rogen would have none of it. Instead he flat-out rejected the request.

Rogen explained to Colbert’s audience, “I look over and his [Ryan’s] kids are standing right there expectantly, clearly fans of mine, and I said, ‘No way, man!’”

Famous for its blatent insensitivity, the Colbert crowd cheered vociferously, despite the hurt that Ryan and his children likely suffered.

After telling the studio audience how he summarily rejected Ryan in front of his children, Rogen then added insult to injury by bragging about how he really gave it to the Speaker in front of his kids.

“Furthermore, I hate what you’re doing to the country at this moment and I’m counting the days until you no longer have one iota of the power that you currently have,” Rogen purportedly told Ryan.

Claiming he felt “conflicted” about subjecting Ryan’s children to his mean-spirited remarks, Rogen evidently just couldn’t resist the urge to diss the kids’ dad.

Throwing in a bit more reverse racism, Rogen said, “His kids seemed lovely, and very Caucasian.”

Guilt seemed to manifest itself until arrogance got the better of him as Rogen said, “It’s not their fault, but at the same time they should probably learn that if they like a movie or song, the person who made that probably doesn’t like their dad that much.”

During the appearance, Rogen jumped to the topic of the border and also praised his native country for legalizing marijuana.

“This week Trump made prisons for kids, and Canada legalized recreational marijuana,” Rogen said. “I don’t know if there’s an official grading system for the weeks a country has, but that was a good week for Canada.”

Because the hosts of “Fox & Friends Weekend” had some less than flattering things to say about Rogen’s Colbert appearance, the actor apparently felt the need to lash out with a tweet, which read, “Oh man. Now my TL [timeline] is gonna be filled with virtue signaling snowflakes who are offended by my free speech.”

This is the same guy who belittled the Christian concept of the rapture in “This is the End,” disparaged Christmas in “The Night Before,” and tried to get Costco to stop selling Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. ”

Rogen had used his Twitter account to ask Costco, “Why do you sell books that compare left wing people like me to Nazis?”

Rogen is apparently trying to stretch into serious dramatic roles now, beginning with a film called “Newsflash” about the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In the upcoming movie, Rogen will play the role of legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite, who is the person who earned the title of “the most trusted man in America.”

Paul Ryan and his kids may have a few choice words to say about that.

Back to the Future for the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

f2e69dea-1587-4aa0-8eda-01a0cddb5775-1280x720_80612b00xhbst

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon recently greenlighted the $85 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, while failing to impose any conditions or restrictions upon the massive media consolidation.

The merger, about which reports have circulated since late 2016, was publicly opposed by President Donald Trump as well as by the Department of Justice, which in the fall of 2017 went to court to stop the transaction.

After a six-week trial, Judge Leon ruled that the merger could move ahead, belittling the government’s legal arguments.

In an unusual expression for a jurist, Leon, who also presided over the Comcast-NBC-U mega-merger in 2011, went so far as to urge the government not to appeal the decision.

Antitrust law exists to prevent monopolies that could potentially stifle competition and harm consumers. When the same company owns the means of media production as well as the means of distribution of media content, antitrust issues arise.

This is not the first time that media companies have been met with legal challenges over simultaneous ownership of content and the means by which the content is delivered. In the 1940s, Hollywood studios produced motion pictures while owning the theaters in which the very films were being displayed.

In a 1948 decision, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Hollywood studios would be required to sell off movie theater holdings.

The landmark decision essentially ended the studio system of the “Golden Age” of movies, while fundamentally altering the way in which Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. It also fostered the idea that “vertical integration” should be restrained by courts and, based on antitrust principles, barriers should be put in place between corporate ownership of both distribution and content.

With regard to the AT&T-Time Warner merger, the Trump administration had argued that the resulting conglomerate would create the same vertical integration-dual ownership issue that the old Hollywood studio system faced, and as a negative consequence consumers would end up paying more for their television viewing.

This was the same position with regard to the proposed merger that then-candidate Trump held during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In addition to potential risk to consumers’ pocketbooks, the entertainment business will be significantly affected by the AT&T-Time Warner combination. Allowing the merger to proceed in its present fashion will have profound ramifications for the manner in which entertainment companies compete with one other.

Owners of news, movie, and/or entertainment cable television channels, who wish to be well placed on the AT&T-Time Warner system, will be beholden to a company that has control over the delivery system while simultaneously owning competing channels.

Producers of content that competes with that of AT&T-Time Warner may need to have the content distributed via the merged company’s delivery system.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the merged company would advertently or even inadvertently favor channels and content which the enterprise owns.

The court’s decision in approving the merger may also embolden other Hollywood studios to pair up with telecommunications companies in order to effectively deal with the cash-rich tech companies that have invaded the entertainment space of late, e.g., Apple, Amazon, Google, and Netflix.

One relevant case in point is that of Comcast, which has jumped into the bidding for 21st Century Fox’s assets that Disney had already been in the process of negotiating to purchase.

Consumers generally have very few options when it comes to cable, satellite, and broadband services. AT&T provides broadband and television via a cable media delivery service, U-verse. It also owns a major satellite television provider, DirecTV.

By acquiring Time Warner, the company obtains a major movie and television studio, which includes the DC Comics’ franchises, Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, along with television programming on TBS, TNT, CNN, and HBO.

By owning content and delivery, the newly merged company has the same kind of vertical integration that the Court broke up years ago, when it forced movie studios to divest in the Paramount case.

 

Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and the Death of Late-night Comedy

gettyimages-631178240-550x330

With liberals targeting for destruction one cultural institution after another, it was inevitable that late-night comedy was going to have its turn.

Ironically, late-night comic hosts, many of whom were trailblazers in the laugh industry, have slowly but surely morphed into lemmings, substituting smug political claptrap for comedy.

Rather than entertain, the ones who are lucky enough to have actually made it into comedy’s top echelon are now catering to a flimsy fan base of enraged resisters and hate-driven hypocrites.

Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time,” is the latest example. He recently let it be known how bitter leftists view President Donald Trump’s economic track record.

Recognizing the phenomenal economy under President Trump’s leadership, Maher stated that he believes it is critical for the U.S. economy to collapse in order to rid the country of a president with whom he disagrees.

“I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy,” Maher said. “So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people but it’s either root for a recession, or you lose your democracy.”

The left is so steeped in hatred it is willing to let the best interests of the nation take a back seat to spite. And like far too many others in his industry, Maher is more than willing to see his neighbor harmed than to see President Trump succeed.

It is hard to fathom how late-night comedy allowed itself to descend to such a pitiful depth. Late-night television was created and branded by the pioneers of the medium – Jack Paar, Steve Allen, and of course the man who defined the forum, “The King of Late-Night” Johnny Carson.

Carson was the guy who dropped in unannounced but you never wanted him to leave. No matter what had transpired in the course of the day, he could make you forget in a single quip. He was simply a friend that taught you how to smile yourself to sleep.

The current crop of late-night hosts could benefit from the master in more ways than one. A single show of Carson’s could bring in as many as 9 million viewers. By comparison, CBS’s “Late Show,” hosted by Stephen Colbert, is currently the highest-rated late-night program, but a good night for Colbert is typically a third of the viewers that Carson had, in part because Colbert’s program generally consists of Trump trashing and partisan punches.

Viewers today admittedly have a lot more options when it comes to the late-night timeslot. In addition to broadcast networks’ offerings of Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon, there are numerous cable offerings, which include TBS’s Conan O’Brien, Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah, HBO’s John Oliver, and BET’s Robin Thede, along with broadcast networks’ very late-nighters James Corden and Seth Meyers.

Late-night writers generally cater to viewers who use social media to watch highlight video footage from previous programs. Shows with late-night content that stream to viewers include Hulu’s Sarah Silverman and Netlix’s Joel McHale and Michelle Wolf, who is best known for her embarrassingly unfunny performance at the most recent White House Correspondents Dinner. Weekly late-nighters such as Comedy Central’s Jim Jeffries and TBS’s Samantha Bee are also part of the mix.

Virtually all of the shows specialize in targeting the president, and Bee is one of the hosts who clearly illustrates the lowlights of today’s pathetic programming. Referring to the daughter of the president in the crudest of ways, Bee incurred a deserved backlash, which prompted defections by a number of sponsors. Both Bee and TBS later apologized, but the comic was not fired or suspended. In another humorless incident, there was a young man who had attended the Conservative Political Action Conference and was bashed with a comment about “Nazi hair.” It turned out that the young man was actually suffering from Stage 4 brain cancer, and Bee was again forced to apologize.

It is painful to have to say that in this sorry state of late-night comedy, television’s most visible hosts have turned into boring political preachers and in the process have themselves become the joke.

‘Roseanne’ without Roseanne Barr?

roseanne-cast-new

After Disney and ABC gave Roseanne Barr the severest of penalties for her ill-fated tweet by canceling her television show “Roseanne,” sources indicate that the ABC brass are now looking into the idea of continuing the sitcom in some fashion without Barr.

TMZ first reported the following: “The powers that be at ABC are exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne.”

A pitch meeting is set to take place between the producers of “Roseanne” and Disney ABC executives on June 4 to explore a revival of the “Roseanne” reboot with a new name minus the show’s namesake.

The key individuals that have been pursuing the continuation of the sitcom include co-star and executive producer Sara Gilbert, showrunner and executive producer Bruce Helford, and executive producer Tom Werner.

Gilbert was the driving force behind the initial “Roseanne” reboot. Helford was the co-creator and executive producer of “The Drew Carey Show” as well as the executive producer and writer for the original “Roseanne” during season five of the series. Werner co-founded the Carsey-Werner Company and was executive producer of the original “Roseanne,” along with “The Cosby Show,” “A Different World,” “3rd Rock from the Sun,” and “That 70s Show.”

Even if ABC greenlights a revival of a reboot, financial and legal obstacles may end up thwarting its plans. Carsey-Werner owns the lion’s share of the rights to “Roseanne.” However, Barr was the co-creator and executive producer of the show and has contractual financial interests in the series.

ABC is aware of the fact that a competing network faced a similar problem when it removed the lead actor from a top sitcom. Charlie Sheen was fired from “Two and a Half Men” in 2011, and Ashton Kutcher became the star of the show. Sheen also possessed contractual financial interests in the show and filed a $100 million lawsuit to pursue those interests, which concluded with a settlement of $25 million.

Barr has indicated via her Twitter account that she is thinking about fighting back against the cancellation of her reboot. Depending on the provisions in her contract, she may be able to legally challenge the attempt to create a spinoff that has the same characters and similar plotlines.

Disney ABC attorneys could even find themselves working overtime to negotiate a buyout of Roseanne’s rights in order to move forward with a project without her.

Another significant challenge involves the cast. Key members may not wish to be associated with the show or may have conflicting projects. Actors need to know that a project is real so that they can reserve time on their calendars.

It would be crucial for the producer to secure co-stars John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf for the new project. Goodman is a sought after character actor, and Metcalf just snagged an Oscar nomination for “Lady Bird” and is additionally doing well on Broadway. The aforementioned Gilbert has her continuing spot on CBS’s “The Talk” to protect.

The writing staff would have to be contracted as well. Ironically, on the very same day that ABC cancelled “Roseanne,” the writers had gathered at the studio lot to begin work on the upcoming season.

Despite the cancellation, ABC and Carsey-Werner reportedly have a contractual obligation to pay key cast members and writers for the upcoming season on a 10-episode guarantee, which provides an incentive to revive the series reboot.

There are other shows that have continued on following the departure of their lead actors. Current streaming programs “House of Cards” and “Transparent” have both made the transition following the removal of their respective stars Kevin Spacey and Jeffrey Tambor.

An example often cited by industry experts is one from the 1980s. A successful sitcom, “Valerie,” starred Valerie Harper as a career mother, who along with a somewhat invisible airline pilot husband is raising her three sons. After Harper had a dispute with the show’s producers, she was written out of the series. Sandy Duncan joined the cast as the boys’ aunt, who moved in and became their de facto parent. The series was renamed “Valerie’s Family: The Hogans,” which was later shortened to “The Hogan Family.”

However, the unprecedented success of the “Roseanne” reboot differs from the run-of-the-mill television project. Barr had built a sizable reservoir of conventional fandom during her syndication run of 25 years. What gave the reboot such exceptional impetus was the bond that she shares with millions of people, many of whom voted for President Trump, who were chiefly responsible for the phenomenal ratings of the show and who managed to transform a television debut into a cultural event.

A “Roseanne” series without Roseanne may initially draw the curious. But without the show’s comedic and cultural core cast member, it would likely end up as a shadow of its former self.