Shady meetings in high-level offices, off the books burner phones to hide communications, and whispers of a coup. These plot lines sound like they’re ripped straight out of a late night ID channel espionage series: “Case Files of the KGB”… or something like that. In reality, everything I just described was going inside the hallowed halls of the FBI.
It was reported last week that the former second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI had been relieved from the Muller investigation due to a series of anti-Trump text messages. At first – to be honest – this seemed kind of eye roll worthy. I mean, who hasn’t sent a few ant-Trump text messages? Even if you’re fully in the President’s corner – come on – I KNOW you’ve sent at least ONE text saying, “crap I wish he wouldn’t have tweeted that.” That’s really all I was expecting to see here.
On Tuesday night, 375 of the 10,000 text messages were released to the press. Many of them, as expected, were just kind of stupid. Sure there’s a clear disdain for Trump and admiration for Hillary Clinton, but there’s a big difference in having a political opinion versus showing bias in an investigation. That was the vibe Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was giving to Congress yesterday and that’s primarily how the mainstream media is reporting it.
So that’s that… well, not quite. I kept scanning through the meaningless texts until I came across this one. It says quote:
“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced…”
Ok, that sounded a little bad. What could they possibly be discussing about Hillary that requires them to hide their communications? Maybe the fact that this FBI agent was the one that doctored Comey’s Clinton statement to help her avoid indictment? I mean I’m just guessing here… let’s read on.
Ok, there’s an “Eff Trump”… yadda yadda yadda… “Congrats on a woman nominated for President”… wait, what’s this:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way Trump gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’ like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Is that what I think it is, because it sounds an awful lot like the second-in-command of counterintelligence – who was working on both the Clinton investigation AND the Trump/Russia investigation – was making plans with a colleague to undermine Donald Trump. Oh yeah, and the office referenced in the text – “Andy’s” – was likely Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t a case of a little harmless “political preference”, this sounds like bias with the intent to conspire against a then-presidential candidate. How far did this plot go? At this point we need a Special Counsel… to investigate the Special Counsel.
Have you heard of the new movie review website called Rotten Apples?
Not Rotten Tomatoes – that’s the one people use to try to convince each other to see a movie. “But honey, it got 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. It must be really good.”
Rotten Apples isn’t like that. It really boils things down for the movie, or TV show consumer. You type in any title and it gives you an instant rating, either “Fresh Apples” or “Rotten Apples.”
It’s a website that really addresses current needs. It’s very of-the-moment, you might even say it’s very #MeToo… because that is exactly what inspired it.
You see, Rotten Apples is a brand-new website that tells you if anyone involved in a movie or show has been accused of sexual misconduct. Notice I said accused of. It’s not a criminal database. And no, I’m not making this up.
If you type in a movie title and no one’s been accused of anything, the page reads “Fresh Apples – This movie has no known affiliation to anyone with allegations of sexual misconduct against them.”
If you type in a show like House of Cards, however, the page reads “Rotten Apples” followed by the name of the person accused. If you click on the name, it links to an article from another media source about the allegations against that person.
The team of four – two males, two females – who created the site, say it’s not meant to incite boycotts of movies or shows, but to help people make “ethical media consumption decisions.”
Wow. This site just launched on Tuesday. It’s so new, I’m not even sure what to think of it yet. Is this another example of the internet keeping an industry honest – like travel or restaurant review sites? Could something like this actually help keep Hollywood predators at bay?
Or, is this website a one-way ticket to libel town since it’s based on accusations?
Regardless, it’s kind of a suspenseful game, to type in your favorite movies and shows, cross your fingers, and hope your childhood isn’t ruined by finding out your hero is a total creep. The results can be surprising. Or not.
Whatever you do, just don’t type in Home Alone 2. Under any circumstances. Or The Little Rascals. Trust me. Just don’t type those in.
“I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”
Those are the cruel words Harvey Weinstein reportedly said to Salma Hayek.
The actress is the latest and one of the most high-profile women to share her frightening experience with Weinstein.
In a shocking essay published by the New York Times, Hayek detailed her hellish encounters with the disgraced producer.
She met Weinstein when she approached his company Miramax to help finance and distribute her film, Frida.
He agreed, but his involvement came with a hefty price: her mental and physical wellbeing.
She claims that Weinstein repeatedly stalked her and asked for sexual favors.
When she declined his advances in private, he made a demand for a sex scene in the film with her co-star, Ashley Judd, who was also harassed by Weinstein. An emotionally battered Hayek begrudgingly agreed because the future of the film was at stake.
Frida went on to win Two Academy Awards.
But Hayek clearly lost when she partnered with Weinstein. After reading her essay, it’s clear he made the most important experience of her career a living hell.
Salma Hayek will not be the last person to add to the mountain of allegations against Weinstein, but her account is noteworthy because it draws the line between Weinstein and the other men accused of sexual misconduct. It’s clear Weinstein is in a league of his own.