Category Archives: Law

Legal Irrational Exuberance? Turley on Devin Nunes, Lawrence Tribe and the law | Feb 15 2018

When Mania Goes Mainstream: Experts Claim Nunes Could Be Indicted Next

|| Jonathan Turley

“Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the recent column in the New York Times by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe and others that Devin Nunes could be charged with obstruction of justice. The column contains highly dubious uses of both history and precedent to advance this latest claim of criminality.  The ABA Journal and other papers have reported on the theory without any objective of its meritless foundation in constitutional law.  The basis for such claim is so attenuated as to border on the fanciful.   There are serious possible crimes being alleged without twisting the criminal code to go after supporters of President Trump.

For a year, some of us have questioned calls for the prosecution of President Trump for obstruction of justice. Every ill-conceived statement or tweet by Trump is proclaimed as “smoking gun” evidence of this seemingly catch-all crime. As the “resistance” to Trump grew, so did the expansion of the interpretation of the crime. It became increasingly more difficult to determine not what is obstruction but what is not obstruction. A recent column in the New York Times seems to have the answer: Prosecute them all and let God sort them out.

The column by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe, (right), American Constitution Society president Caroline Fredrickson and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen argued that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) could now join Trump in the criminal dock. His crime? Writing a memo alleging FBI abuses that was released by a vote of the majority of a committee overseeing the FBI.

The column entitled “Is Devin Nunes Obstructing Justice?” captures the distemper that has overtaken legal analysis. It appears that anyone deemed as supporting Trump can now be charged with the same nebulous crime. After all, if Trump is actively trying to obstruct a federal investigation, surely those who actively support him or oppose the investigation are no less guilty of the same offense.It is not that easy for federal courts, which traditionally follow the opposite inclination under the “rule of lenity.” Courts tend to not only define criminal laws narrowly but rule in favor of defendants in areas of ambiguity. These and other experts appear to view ambiguity as an invitation for creativity in finding ways to indict Trump. There is a real danger to civil liberties by the continuing effort to endlessly expand criminal definitions. Trump will not be our last president and these new overarching definitions will remain with us as a type of unpaid bill. It will be citizens who pay that legal bill.

The latest obstruction claim asserts that “by writing and releasing the memo, the chairman may just have landed himself, and his staff members, in the middle of Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation.” Of course, there is the obvious complication of the immunity afforded to members of Congress under the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I.

In Gravel v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this immunity for not just members but staff after Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) read portions of the Pentagon Papers before a congressional committee. Ironically, Gravel was supporting the New York Times, which first published the papers in defiance of the Nixon administration.

While acknowledging the “strong bulwark” of immunity, the authors work mightily to limit the possible use of immunity, including some creative use of history. For example, they note that the Supreme Court did not extend immunity as far as Gravel’s publication of the papers in a later book. However, the court supported the immunity over the disclosure through the committee.

If anything, Nunes is in a much stronger position than Gravel. Nunes did not unilaterally release the memo like Gravel and he did so in a committee with direct oversight of the FBI. Conversely, the Pentagon Papers were read at an entirely unrelated subcommittee on buildings and grounds of the Senate Public Works Committee.

It is equally dubious to suggest that the memo may be found to have “mere peripheral connection to legislative acts” or a pure political act to deny immunity. The basis for this claim is simply that the authors and Democrats disagree with the conclusions of the memo. No competent federal judge would rule that such a memo is unrelated to the legislative purpose of oversight over the FBI

Even more bizarrely, there was this warning: “Nunes would do well to remember what befell Senator Daniel Brewster of Maryland.” Nunes would be understandably confused by the historical reference. Brewster claimed immunity over the acceptance of alleged bribes. This facially ridiculous argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, though Brewster was later acquitted of bribery and had the remaining convictions overturned on other grounds.

Where experts argued for months about the dubious crime of “collusion” with the Russians, these experts are now arguing for a crime of “collaboration” with the White House. The idea is that, if Nunes or his staff coordinated in the issuance of the memo, they could be charged for casting doubt on the conduct of the FBI in the early investigation of the Russian matter.

The suggestion of an obstruction case against Nunes reduces the criminal code to a virtual professorial parlor game. For a year, experts have assured eager (if not desperate) audiences that a criminal case against Trump is now in sight. For example, Tribe and Eisen have been alleging a host of unlawful acts, including a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional emoluments that was thrown out by a federal judge in December.”

….Continue reading more @ Jonathan Turley

Rep. Ted Lieu uses scripture to justify DACA amnesty | Feb 11 2018

The True Biblical Response to Illegal Immigration and DREAMers

|| Townhall

“My Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) hosted another error-ridden town hall in Hermosa Beach last week. On immigration, he claimed to support two parts of President Trump’s proposed(?) plan: granting legal status to 1.8 million young illegals; and enhancing border security (although Lieu called the border wall “stupid”). He differed on ending chain migration and the diversity lottery. He quoted the Bible in his defense: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” (Matthew 25:35).

My response: “Then take them into your home!” Amnesty advocates preach their open-border morality, but don’t live up to it. Moreover, Jesus’ statement is directed toward individuals who welcomed strangers into their own homes voluntarily. Any form of amnesty imposed by our government is not voluntary.

My consternation with these Biblical arguments has grown since reading this article in the Christian Post, when evangelical leaders, many of whom I respect, pressured Congress to pass some kind of DREAM Act. Pastor Samuel Rodriguez of Sacramento, CA stated in a January press conference: “The wall is a physical object created by man. 800,000 human beings created in the image of God by God.” Walls are Biblical, affirmed by God in Scripture. In fact, God commands the construction of walls around Jerusalem both the Old (Nehemiah 1:1-7:3) and the New (Isaiah 54: 12; Ezekiel 42:20).

In another letter to Congress, Evangelical leaders wrote: “Roughly 700,000 young people are poised to lose their right to work lawfully in the U.S., not to mention their dreams of a future in this country—the country they were brought to as children, without choice.” First of all, this country is not responsible for their parents’ crimes, which have harmed their children. Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents (cf. Jeremiah 31:29), but natural consequences remain. A mother breaks into my home, steals my car, and her children use the ill-gotten gains for good. I am still entitled to restoration of my property (Exodus 22). Illegal aliens are stealing this country’s space, resources, and wealth.

In response to these pro-enforcement arguments, preachers cite The New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10-012), which asserts that we are no longer under law, but under grace. However, grace is not arbitrary. Jesus died on a Cross for the sins of the world, the just for the unjust (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18). A payment must be rendered. Why should law-abiding citizens pay for lawbreakers?

If Christian leaders want to preach accurately on immigration, they should first acknowledge a few things:

  1. Nations are God’s idea, not merely man’s construction, and rewarding illegal immigration harms nations. Genesis 11 reports God created multiple languages—and nations—to stop mankind from building the Tower of Babel. The dissolution of border security and national sovereignty are unholy gestures. To contend for amnesty based on a misplaced understanding of scripture is not tenable. There will come a time when every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Christ Jesus as Lord, but for now nation-states remain as part of God’s plan. Rampant amnesties only erode national boundaries.
  2. Citizenship is a principle defended in the Bible. In the Old Testament, strangers were respected (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10: 19), but they were expected to adopt all the customs of Israel, not retain their original cultural views (Numbers 15: 14-29). In the New Testament, Paul the apostle asserted his Roman citizenship to redress the abusive treatment of Roman soldiers (Acts 22:22-23:11). He also addressed his fellow Christians as “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20, Colossians 3:5-16). Membership in a defined, national compact matters and should not be pushed aside. Many illegals in this country, especially DREAMers, are hell-bent on retaining and imposing a neo-pagan culture in this country, estranged and unsubmissive to our country’s constitutional rule and civic culture.
  3. Christians are called to honor their rulers (and rules!) among the nations (1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:17). To dismiss the authority of temporal rulers, especially on matters of immigration, is unholy and unwise.

Instead of championing amnesty, Christian leaders should reference the ideal immigrant: Ruth the Moabite. Unlike the 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in our country, per official tallies, Ruth did not break into her adoptive nation of Israel. She had a sponsor, her mother-in-law Naomi. There were other factors which Ruth obeyed, too (Ruth 1:16-17):

  1. “For whither thou goest, I will go”: She would attend to Naomi, recognizing her place in her new country as based solely on the goodness of her mother-in-law. She did not enter into Israel as a political radical or busy-body.
  2. “Where thou lodgest, I will lodge”: She would live with Naomi, not depending on someone else, particularly the state or taxpayers, to provide her housing. Her needs would come from her sponsor, not by force from other inhabitants in Israel.
  3. “Your people will be my people”: This statement sums up assimilation perfectly. She pledged to become an Israelite. How often do our leaders today talk about the importance of immigrants adopting American customs, rather than demanding that we accommodate their foreign ways?
  4. “Thy God [will be] my God.”: while our free society does not demand religious adherence to one creed, we should expect immigrants to embrace our cultural and moral values. For this reason, I am adamant against accepting adherents of Sharia Law, for example, or other religious sects which endanger life and property.
  5. “Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried”: Ruth pledged a complete break with her pagan country and culture. She refused to abandon her new country or identity.

At the very least, politicians and pastors should stop shaming the public by misusing Scripture. Christians should have a ready defense when amnesty advocates distort Scripture for selfish political ends. Every country has a right to strong borders, safe citizens, and a secured sovereignty. These are not un-Christian expectations in the slightest.”

….Continue reading @ Townhall

NFL Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson Killed by DUI Illegal Alien on Super Bowl Sunday | Feb 06 2018

NFL Colts Linebacker Allegedly Killed by Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Drunk Driver

|| Breitbart

“Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson and his driver were allegedly killed by a drunk driving, previously deported illegal alien Sunday morning near Indianapolis. The suspect fled the scene on foot after crashing into their vehicle. Indiana State Police officers arrested the reported driver later that morning.

Police arrested a man who identified himself as Alex Cabrera Gonsales, a 37-year-old Mexican national, after he allegedly crashed his black Ford F-150 into a car parked along Interstate 70 near Indianapolis, according to a statement obtained from the Indiana State Police. The driver of the car, 54-year-old Jeffrey Monroe, and his passenger, 26-year-old Indianapolis Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson, were both killed in the crash.

Detectives discovered the driver gave police false information about his identity. Investigators said the man’s name is actually Manuel Orrego-Savala, a citizen of Guatemala. A background investigation revealed Orrego-Savala has been deported from the United States on two previous occasions. The first deportation occurred in 2007. This was followed by a second deportation in 2009.

Police believe Monroe was a rideshare operator who picked up Jackson and was taking him home. Monroe apparently pulled his car over to the shoulder to assist Jackson who had become ill. Shortly after that, the truck driven by Orrego-Savala crashed into the back of the car.

Statements from the state police indicate that both victims were outside of their 2018 Lincoln when the crash occurred. The impact threw one of the victims into the center lane of the highway where he was later struck by another vehicle. The coroner’s office pronounced both victims dead at the scene of the crash.

Orrego-Savala reportedly fled the scene on foot but state police troopers found him a short distance away from the scene of the crash and took him into custody. Orrego-Savala had no drivers license, officials stated.

Breitbart Texas reached out to ICE officials to determine if Orrego-Savala has any additional immigration history. A response was not available by the time of this publication.

Jackson, nicknamed “Pound Cake,” recently completed his second season with the Indianapolis Colts.

The Colts said Jackson “loved the game of football and we’re thankful to have been a part of his journey,” in a tweet responding to the news of Jackson’s death.”

…..Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

Jonathan Turley on the Nunes Memo | Feb 04 2018

Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI

|| theHill.com | Jonathan Turley

“The release of the four-page memo by the House Intelligence Committee has triggered preset responses from both sides. The memo is, in fact, enlightening in a number of respects. However, the most alarming elements may be what it does not contain.

First, it is important to start with what we previously knew. At the heart of this controversy is the dossier that was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, and Fusion GPS with funding from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Previously, Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, and former campaign chairman, John Podesta, denied any connection to the dossier. After news stores confirmed the funding, Elias and Clinton herself admitted that they did fund this effort.

Second, we knew that Steele shopped the information in the dossier to various reporters to try to get them published during the election. Third, the contents of this dossier were so unverified that virtually all of the reporters declined to run the story during the campaign.

The memo confirms that top FBI officials, including former director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, used the dossier to secure secret surveillance targeting a U.S. citizen. That citizen was Carter Page, an aide to the presidential candidate of the party opposing the Obama administration. Comey signed off on multiple Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications targeting Page.

The memo states that the applications never mentioned that the dossier was funded in significant part by the Clinton campaign, even though high-ranking officials knew about that funding. That would obviously be highly material to judging the value of the information. To make matters worse, Steele admitted to FBI agent Bruce Orr, who was later demoted, that he hated Trump and was “desperate that not be elected and was passionate about his not being president.”

….Continue reading at The Hill

 

 

 

Nunes Memo Released by President Trump | Cites 1970’s law for releasing classified information | Feb 02 2018

FACT CHECK: Read The GOP Memo Released By House Intelligence Committee

|| NPR

“A memo alleging the FBI abused its surveillance authority became public on Friday after a push by House Republicans. President Trump authorized the memo’s release, even after the FBI expressed “grave concerns” about the “accuracy” of the document, authored by House intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

NPR journalists who cover the Justice Department, the White House and national security have annotated the White House’s authorization letter and the memo itself.

January 18, 2018
Declassified by order of the President on February 2, 2018
To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff

The Nunes memo, as it has come to be known, was compiled by members of the Republican staff on the House intelligence committee. On Monday, the committee voted along party lines to release the memo.

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard ­— particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

  1. Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
  2. The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actor were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News — and several other outlets — in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.”

…..Continue reading more @ NPR with NPR commentary on the memo

Comey, Yates, McCabe, Rosenstein All Signed Off On Misleading FISA Applications

|| Daily Caller

“A number of top FBI and Justice Department officials neglected to provide essential information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to the House Intelligence Committee memo produced Friday.

The memo states that Former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and former Attorney General Sally Yates were all required to sign off on the FISC warrant application before it was reviewed and ultimately approved.

“As required by statute (50 U.S.C.), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications,” the memo reads.

The memo further claims those officials were aware at the time of their signing that the unsubstantiated Steele opposition research dossier, which was included to bolster their warrant application, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign; but the application did not include that information.

While the memo asserts the dossier was used in the initial warrant application, it does not specify if it was used in the three successive applications to extend the warrant, which must be filed every 90 days and must include new evidence to support probable cause. The aforementioned four senior agents signed off at various points throughout the roughly one year Page was under surveillance.

The importance of the infamous Steele dossier is demonstrated clearly in the memo, which cites McCabe as having testified that the warrant to surveil Page would not have been approved without the politically funded opposition research.

“Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information”

President Donald Trump indicated he was open to the possibility of firing Rosenstein due to his role in failing to disclose the political funding behind the salacious Steele dossier on the FBI’s FISC warrant application.

“Does it make you more likely to fire Rosenstein? Do you still have confidence in him?” Trump was asked by reporters in the oval office Friday after the highly anticipated memo was released.

“You figure that one out,” Trump responded, according to the White House press pool.”

…Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

 

Silicon Valley Shutting Down Free Speech on Twitter with Shadow Bans? | Jan 13 2018

How Many of Twitter’s 1,110 Foreign Visa Holders Are Actively Working to Shut Down Conservative Speech in America?

|| TGP

“On Thursday investigative journalist James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released a shocking report on how Twitter Corporation shadow bans conservative voices on the social media platform.

Of course, the liberal US media ignored the shocking report by Project Veritas.

What is more disturbing is that Twitter filed 869 labor condition applications for H1B visa and 241 labor certifications for green card from fiscal year 2014 to 2016.

In total Twitter applied filed applications for 1,110 foreign workers.
Twitter reportedly has 3,900 employees.

The video has over 138,000 views in about 8 hours.

On Thursday night James O’Keefe challenged the liberal media to cover the story.

The liberal mainstream media ignored the story today as they regularly do when the story does not fit their left-wing narrative.

Of course, the liberal US media ignored the shocking report by Project Veritas.

Watch this Project Veritas clip of Twitter engineer, Pranay Singh show his disgust for the American flag, guns and God. He also calls Trump supporters “rednecks”. He is bragging about censoring and shadowbanning people on Twitter. Let that sink in.

Singh also claims all Trump supporters on Twitter are Russians.

TGP’s Cristina Laila points out the obvious:

…Continue reading more @ TGP

 

Oprah Makes Statement on Sexual Harassment at Golden Globes Forgets to Mention Her Part in Weinstein Rape | Jan 08 2017

Actress: Weinstein used Oprah and Naomi to seduce me

|| NY Post

“An aspiring actress says Harvey Weinstein used Oprah Winfrey and Naomi Campbell to dupe her into thinking he would help her with her career — only to use her for sex.

British actress Kadian Noble said Tuesday she was head-over-heels impressed when she first met Weinstein at an event in London because he was hanging out with model Campbell and had megastar Oprah “swinging off his arm.”

“I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me,” she said during a teary-eyed press conference in Manhattan to discuss the sex trafficking lawsuit she filed a day earlier against Weinstein in Manhattan federal court.

Instead, Weinstein used promises of career advancement to lure the actress to his hotel room in Cannes, France, where he forced himself on her, she said.

“I felt completely played,” she said.​

Noble is the latest in a long line of actresses and models who claim Weinstein either forced himself on them or coerced them into sex with promises of career advancement.

“Mr. Weinstein denies allegations of non-consensual sex,” his spokeswoman said. “Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances.”

After meeting Weinstein in London, Noble said she thought nothing of bringing her “show reel” to his hotel room when she saw him again in Cannes in February 2014.

Once inside the hotel room, however, “he didn’t seem that interested in my show reel,” Noble said.

Instead, he began touching her while discussing hooking her up with a modeling agency in London.

“He said, ‘I need to know you really like me,’” Nobel said. “’I have all the information we need. I just need to know you really like me.’”

The incident ended in the bathroom, where he “forced” Noble to perform sex acts in front of the bathroom mirror, she said.

Afterward, Weinstein failed to help her with her career as promised, she said. She blames him for destroying her acting dreams and said she has since reported her case to the NYPD.”

…Continue reading  more @ NY Post

 

British Actress Says Weinstein Used Oprah to Lure Her to His Room #MeToo

|| TGP

“On Sunday night Oprah Winfrey lectured the nation and white males for the monstrous sexual abuse culture in Hollywood during her Golden Globes speech.

Most all of the men accused of abusive behavior against women in the past several months are liberal elites.

But it wasn’t that long ago that a British actress accused Weinstein and Oprah of persuading her to his hotel bedroom.

Harvey Weinstein’s lurid past and outright inappropriate behavior was the focus of the news cycle last year…

Although Weinstein faded from public view, Hollywood continued to implode.

Almost daily, new accusations against Hollywood celebrities surfaced and garnered headlines. It seems that no one is safe in the industry; with Matt Lauer being outed and exposed as a sick, deviant creep, it makes you contemplate what well-known and respected name will break next.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP